? LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.! 



|hap, 



M 

=5^. 



IP 



ppgriglit :j\!o 



tS, 



Cr^ 



t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. ! 



>:. 



v^ :i^ 



\ 



\ 



7ld yf 





Yz^, /^cZ. s. /^^^ 








CJC-<j~^-'i--<^'i-'i.'t^yC<ij-^ 




\ 



AN EXPOSITION 



OF THB 



LAW OF BAPTISM; 



AS IT REGARDS 



THE MODE AND THE SUBJECTS. 



BY 

EDWIN HALL, D. D. 

PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, AUBURN THEOLOGICAL SEMIN.iRY. 




PHILADELPHIA : 
PRESBYTERIAN PUBLICATION COMMITTEE, 

No. 1334 Chestnut Street. 



New York : A. D. F. Randolph. 



-PAf a 



U\\ 






Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1864. by 

WM. L. HILDEBURN, 

Treasurer, in trust for the Presbyterian Publication Committee, 

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, for the 
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 



J. FAGAN AND SON, 
STEREOTYPE FOUNDERS, PHILADELPHIA. 



z ^ir ? 



EDITOR'S PREFACE 



The Committee have much satisfaction in 
bringing within the reach of the churches a 
new edition of Dr. Hall's admirable work on 
"The Law of Baptism.*' Originally written 
for the defence of the truth in the author's 
congregation, and published at their desire, 
the work met with an unlooked for demand, 
and was stereotyped and widely circulated. 
The book being out of print, and the plates 
destroyed by fire (or lost), the author has pre- 
sented the copyright of the work to the Pres- 
byterian Publication Committee, by whom it 
has been stereotyped and issued in the present 
form, after revision and emendation by the 

author. 

(iii) 



ir EDITOR S PREFACE. 

" The Law of Baptism " has been widely 
useful in the past, and is eminently adapted to 
meet the difficulties and doubts of inquirers, 
and to overthrow the prejudices and miscon- 
ceptions of those in error as to the mode or 
subjects of Christian Baptism. 



INDEX 



I. Principles of interpretation. 7 

II. Scriptural Modes of Baptism 46 

III. Dissertations upon particular points, touching 

THE interpretation OF THE WORD BaPTIZE : 

1. Classic Greek and the Greek of the New 

Testament 100 

2. Mr. Judd on Mark vii. 4 106 

3. Dr. Campbell on Mark vii. 4, and Luke xi. 38. 107 

4. Prof. Ripley on Mark vii. 4, and Luke xi. 38. 110 

5. Baptist Missionary Translations 116 

6. Scriptural Idea of Baptism 121 

7. Translating the word Baptize 126 

8. Transferring words from one language to 

another 132 

9. Martin Luther's Version 136 

10. The Peshito-Syriac Version 139 

11. Dutch, Danish, and Swedish Versions 142 

12. The Vulgate , 144 

IV. Scriptural authority for Infant Baptism 149 

V. Objections answered. The utility of Infant 

Baptism vindicated , 199 



(V) 



THE 

LAW OP BAPTISM. 



I. 

MODE OF BAPTISM. 

THE PRINCIPLES OF IXTERPRETATION. 



Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. — MATiHE-rr, xx^iii. 19. 

The disciples of Christ are to be baptized. So all 
evangelical Christians agree ; and such is the law of 
Christ. But while there is an entire aQ:reement with 
regard to the authority of the law, there has arisen 
a difference of opinion concerning its interpretation. 
All the leading denominations of Protestant Christen- 
dom, save one (and it is to Protestant Christendom, 
if anywhere on earth, that we are to look for intelli- 
gent views of doctrine and of order, and for evan- 
gelical obedience), all the leading denominations of 
Protestant Christendom, save one, maintain that the 

(7) 



8 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

mode of baptism is not essential ; and for this opinion 
they go, not to the decrees of the Pope, nor to the 
traditions of the Papal Church, as we have been 
slanderously reported, but to the Word of God. 
Upon the most careful examination, and in making 
the best and most scrupulous application of the ac- 
knowledged rules of interpretation that we are able, 
'we tind that sprinkling and pouring are Scriptural 
modes of baptism. Many think further (and I pro- 
fess myself of this number), that these are the only 
modes for which we have any clear Scriptural ex- 
ample, or even clear Scriptural authority, if anything 
is to depend upon the mode. But we think nothing 
depends on the mode : — that the command to Bap- 
tize refers to the thing done, rather than to the mode 
of doing it: viz., to a ritual purifying by some 
manner of application of luafer ; and in which the 
mode of the application is a matter of entire indiffer- 
ence ; provided it be done decently and reverently, 
as becomes an ordinance of God. Hence, we regard 
immersion as valid baptism ; and never refuse to 
administer it in that mode, when the candidate for 
baptism cannot be satisfied in conscience with any 
other. 

But while we believe these things, another large 
denomination of Christians deem it essential to bap- 
tism, that the ichole body be immersed ; and so 
essential, that they refuse to be united in church 
membership, or to partake, even occasionally, of the 
Lord's Supper in company with others who hold the 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 9 

same Gospel truth and order; who are of acknow- 
ledged piety ; who, according to their best under- 
standing, and with the full conviction of their con- 
science, have been baptized ; who differ from them- 
selves only in not having been wholly under water 
in the manner of their baptism ; and who, were they 
to be convinced that immersion is essential to bap- 
tism, would as soon throw their bodies into the iBre 
as refuse to be immersed. Their fault is not wilful 
disobedience ; it is not neglect ; it is not any want 
of candor or diligence in examining the question 
concerning the mode of baptism ; it is solely this : 
instead of subjecting their judgment and conscience 
in this matter to the authority of their Baptist 
brethren, they have presumed to follow their own 
judgment and their own conscience, as enlightened 
by a careful study of the word of God. 

''To the law and to the testimony.*' That word 
shall judge us in the last day, and by that will we 
be determined now. 

In our investigation of the mode or Baptism, I 
shall first remark concerning the principles of infer- 
p7^etation to be applied or admitted in determining 
this question. 

Then I shall, upon the basis of these principles, 
institute three inquiries : 

1. What would the immediate disciples of Christ 
understand from the simple face of the command, 
''Baptize?" 

2. Is there satisfactory evidence that they always 



10 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

administered the ordinance of baptism by immer- 
sion? 

3. On the supposition that our Lord was baptized 
in a given mode, and that the apostles always prac- 
ticed that mode ; is there evidence that they con- 
sidered that one mode essential ? 

The preliminary remarks concerning the principles 
of interpretation y together with an application of 
those principles to the method of arguing employed 
by our Baptist brethren, will occupy this first dis- 
course. I shall be obliged to take up subjects foreign 
from the common field of sermonizing ; and such as 
are rather scholastic, and not very interesting to a 
mixed assembly. I shall be obliged to tax your 
patience somewhat ; but I will make the matter as 
clear and as interesting as I can, and discuss no 
topic which you will not perceive to have a weighty 
bearing upon the argument before we get through. 

There cannot be much Gospel in such a discussion 
as this ; as the whole genius of the Gospel is averse 
to disputations about the mere modes of rites and 
ordinances. I will try, however, to discuss the 
matter in the spirit of the Gospel ; and will endeavor 
to bring in as much of the Gospel of salvation as a 
disputation about the mere ceremony of an ordinance 
will admit. I proceed 

1. TO THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION TO BE 
APPLIED OR ADMITTED IN DETERMINING THIS CASE. 

Sir William Blackstone, in his '^ Commentaries on 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 11 

the Laws of England/' cites the following example 
for the purpose of illustrating one of the principles 
on which laws are to be interpreted.* 

''A law of Edward III. forbids all ecclesiastical 
persons to purchase provisions at Rome.'' JNTow the 
word '^provisions''^ commonly means '^ victuals ^''^ 
'' things to eat ;^^ and at first sight the law of Edward 
III. seems to forbid the purchasing of victuals — 
meat, grain, eatables — at Rome. 

Suppose now, on a debate concerning the import 
of this law, one should say, ''The law is express: 
it says, 'provisions,' and provisions are 'victuals.'" 
Granted : such is the common acceptation of the 
word. Suppose he should urge it, and bring a 
hundred dictionaries, in all of which the first and 
most common meaning of the word "provisions" 
should be "victuals." Suppose, when I question 
whether the law meant victuals, and endeavor to 
give my reasons, he should lift up his hand toward 
the sun, and cry, " It is as plain as the sun in the 
heavens, and the man who does not see it is not 
worth arguing with : all the dictionaries say so : it 
has been conceded a thousand times that 'pro- 
visions' means 'victuals,'" Suppose he should go 
further: suppose he should hunt up the word "pro- 
visions " as used in all the classic English authors 
from the days of Chaucer and Spenser, and show in 
ten thousand instances that the word provisions 



* Blackstone, Introduction, || 2, 3. 



12 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

means victuals ; and that, even in its figurative uses, 
it still refers to something to swpport and nourish: 
e. g. as when Mrs. Isabella Graham selected a mul- 
titude of texts of Scripture calculated to give her 
comfort in death, she called them ''Provisions for 
passing over Jordan." ''Here," says the stickler 
for victuals, " here I take my stand. If I have not 
settled the meaning of the word ' provisions,^ nothing 
can be settled." And so he stretches the law to his 
dictionaries and classics. Provision shall mean 
victuals ; and all further reasoning is barred away 
from any concern in settling the question. 

You have here, if I mistake not, and as I think I 
shall be able to show, the substance of the Baptist 
principles of arguing concerning the question at 
issue. 

But no, says Blackstone ; see first for lohat reason 
the law was made. Search out the meaning of the 
word "provisions," with reference to what was in- 
tended to be forbidden by that law. 

" The law," says Blackstone, "might seem to pro- 
hibit the buying of grain and other victuals ; but 
when we consider that the statute was made to re- 
press the usurpations of the Papal See, and that the 
nominations to benefices by the Pope were called pro- 
visions, we shall see that the restraint is intended to 
be laid on such provisions only." 

The w^ord "provisions" in this law of Edward 
III. does not mean grain or victuals, or stores of any 
kind ; but " nominations to ecclesiastical benefices by 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 13 

the Pope ;" and for this law people may purchase as 
much meat and grain ard other victuals at Rome as 
they please. The decision of Blackstone carries all 
common sense with it. Away go the hundred dic- 
tionaries and the ten thousand quotations from the 
classics. No matter how many times it might have 
been " conceded '' that the word provisions com- 
monly means something to eat. Blackstone himself 
makes the same concession, and still maintains his 
interpretation of the law. 

JSTo matter then, though a hundred dictionaries of 
classic Greek, and ten thousand quotations from 
classic Greek writers, should give immerse as the 
common and universal meaning of the word JBaptizo. 
These classic Greek writers lived in another and 
distant country, and from three hundred to eight 
hundred years before Christ. They were heathen. 
They had never used the word with reference to a 
religious ritual, any more than they had used other 
words of their language to express the Christian 
ideas of Holiness, Sin, Faith, Repentance, Justifi- 
cation, Salvation, Angel, and Church. These words, 
carried into a country where the true God was 
knovrn, and applied to ideas of the true religion, 
immediately assumed a meaning which they had 
never expressed in the land of classic Greek. The 
Greek language was not introduced into Judea till 
after the conquest of that country by Alexander, 
more than three hundred years before Christ. The 
Hebrew continued to be spoken with the Greek; 
2 



14 LAW OP BAPTISM. 

and it is even contended, with no small force of 
argument, that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew ; 
as Paul (Acts xxi. 40) stood on the stairs of the 
castle, and spake to the people ''in the Hebrew 
tongue.^^ When Christ came, the word Baptizo and 
rituals called ''Baptisms'' had been in common and 
every day use among the Jews for about three hun- 
dred years. Thus (Heb. ix. 10) the Jewish ritual 
service is said to have "stood only in meats and 
drinks, and divers washings.''^ — (Sta^dpot^ BaTitiaixoi^ — 
divers baptisms.) Mark vii. 4. speaks of the (Ba^T'tor- 

fiov^ Tio-trjpicov, xai ^satuiv^ xal ;c^'K^bcoVy xav x'kivutv) " bap- 
tisms of cups and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables " 
(or of couches). The same passage says of the Jews, 
that when they come from the market, {circo ayopa^ — 
from places of public concourse,) "except they bap- 
tize themselves^ (f^^i BaTttiacovrav,) they eat not." Ac- 
cordingly, (Luke xi. 38,) when Jesus sat down to 
meat in the Pharisee's house, the Pharisee mar- 
velled "that he had not first washed before dinner," 
— (6Vc oi; Tiputov £j3a7iifia6r^ — that he had not first been 
baptized before dinner.) The custom of baptizing 
themselves was so common as to make it a matter 
of wonder that Jesus should once sit down to dinner 
without being baptized. We have only to ascertain 
what that custom was, to ascertain what they under- 
stood by the word baptize. We cannot settle that 
question by any amount of quotations from classic 
Greek writers. We must allow Matthew, and Mark, 
and Luke, and Paul, to testify concerning the use 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 15 

of the word in their country and their day, and by 
themselves, just as we must allow the heathen 
Greeks to testify concerning its meaning when used 
bv themselves. Where the New Testament use 
differs from that of the classic Greek, it is to be 
adopted as the true one, so far as this question is 
concerned, even though the heathen Greeks should 
be unanimous and uniform in giving another mean- 
ing to the word, in their country and in their day. 
The word is so common in the iSTew Testament and 
in the Septuagint; it is used with reference to rituals, 
whose mode is so well defined as to render its mean- 
ing absolutely certain: and I think I shall be able 
to show with absolute certainty that that meaning 
is not truly given by the w^ord immerse. It is alto- 
gether idle — and I think I shall be able to show 
that it leads to utter error and falsehood — for one 
to pretend to ''fix the meaning of the word " from the 
classic Greek, and to determine beforehand, on such 
a basis, that the New Testament writers must use 
the word in that sense. The Bible is God's own 
word, and surely the Holy Ghost must be a com- 
petent and credible witness, with regard to the 
meaning with which the Holy Ghost uses the word 
baptize. 

Let me give an illustration or two of the effect of 
arguing the Xew Testament meaning from the 
original and from the classic use of a word. 

Some years since I met with a man who was 
liberally educated, a thorough scholar, an able lawyer, 



16 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

and possessed of splendid natural abilities, but skep- 
tical in his views of religion. 

With this man I undertook to reason of the neces- 
sity of being born of the Holy Ghost. Now, the 
word in the Greek Testament for Ghost, or spirit, is 
Pneuma (rtj^fu^a), which originally, and in the classic 
Greek, most commonly meant wind. This man 
would have me argue by book. He turned me to 
the Greek Testament (John iii. 5). '' See here," 
says he, ^4t reads, and you know it reads, ' Yerily, 
verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of 
water and of wind, he cannot enter into the kingdom 
of God.' What right," said he, ''have you to change 
the original classic meaning of ^Pneuma^ (Tivsv^cx), 
^wiiid,^ here, any more than you have of 'Hudatos- 
(v8atos)j ' water P And see further," said he, ''there 
is the same word in the 8th verse — letter for letter 
— and there you do not say, the 'Spirit bloweth 
where it listeth ;' you say, ' the wind bloweth where 
it listeth.' 

He was right in the original and ordinary classic 
use of the word. And if I had argued on the 
principles on which (I shall show) our Baptist 
brethren have argued, I should have been obliged 
to allow, that the renewing by the " Spirit of God," 
or even the personal existence of such a Spirit, is 
not taught or referred to in this passage. 

With all due respect for our Baptist brethren, I 
humbly conceive that, in this matter, they have 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. IT 

, fallen into an egregious error in their attempted cor- 
rections of our common translation. 

To the Bibles and Testaments issued by their 
society, they prefix a glossary, containing, among 
others, the following words, thus : 

'^Meaning of the wo7^ds used in this translation.^'' 
AyysTtoj, Angel, Messenger. 

Ba^tT'tfw, Baptize, Immerse. 

BaTtT'tor^oj, Baptism, Immersion. 

'P.xx'kr^aia, Church, Congregation." 

It is maintained that these words, and some 
others, are improperly, if not dishonestly, left un- 
translated in the received English version, and that 
the words which are given in the third column ought 
to be substituted for the words adopted in our trans- 
lation. Thus: where we read ''Church," we ought 
to read '' Congregation ;" where we read ''Angel" 
in our version, we ought to read "Messenger;" 
where we read " Baptize," we ought to read " Im- 
merse ;" and where we read " Baptism," we ought 
to read " Immersion." 

Now it appears to me that this is falling into a 
worse error than that of the unbelieving scholar 
concerning the word Fneuma, or Spirit. Thus, 
" Angel " is a word of Greek original adopted into 
the English language, and used in our translation.* 



"" Nothing is more common tlian such adoption of words 
from the Greek. The process is going on to this day ; par- 
ticularly our terms of science and of art are almost wholly 
adopted (and compounded) from the Greek. Strike all such 
2* 



18 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

Our Baptist brethren insist that this adoption is 
wrong : that the word ought to be translated by the 
word ''Messenger.'' 

It is certainly true that, in the classic Greek, the 
word Angel (ayyexoi) means Messenger ; and means 
nothing like the idea which we attribute to it: viz., 
of a spiritual being of an order superior to man and 
inferior to God. The Greeks even had another word 
to signify such a spiritual being, '' Demon " (6ai/xiov), 
and Angelas (ayyfXo^) meant nothing but " messen- 
ger.^^ But mark how the classic Greek was modi- 
fied when adapted to Jewish ideas. The Jews used 
the word *' Demon " (Sat^w>) to express only an evil 
spirit; & fallen angel; and " angeV^ they appro- 
priated to the good spirits. And to translate the 
word in all cases as the Baptist Bible Society would 
teach us, instead of adopting it into English, would 
make the most arrant nonsense. 

For example : take Acts xxiii. 8, and translate it 
according to the instructions and on the principles of 
the Baptist Bible Society. 

In our common version the passage reads thus : 

adopted words from our language, and scarcely could two 
people, even in the ordinary walks of life, hold a conversa- 
tion for a single hour. 

<'Et noYSi fictaque iiuper habebunt verba Mem si 
(y^MCO fonte cadant, parce detorta." 

"Licuit SEMPERQUE LICEBIT 

Signatum praesente nota procudere nomen." 

Q. HoRAT. Ars Poetica, 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 19 

*' For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, 
neither angel nor spirit : but the Pharisees confess 
both.'' The word resurrection here falls under the 
same rule, if you take its meaning from the classic 
Greek. The Greeks had no such idea as that of the 
resurrection of the body ; and of course no word for 
it, but their avm'taai^ (anastasis) was a simple " rising 
up.'' In our translation the passage reads thus: 
'" For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, 
neither angel nor spirit; but the Pharisees confess 
both." According to the principles on which our 
translation is branded as inadequate and unfaith- 
ful, we must read it thus: For the Sadducees say 
there is no rising up, neither messenger nor wind." 
But did they ever say so ? Did they ever deny the 
existence of such a thing as a messenger, or of such 
a thing as wind ? 

According to the glossary prefixed to the Bible by 
the Baptist Bible Society, we must expunge the 
word angel from our Bibles, and substitute the word 
messenger. Thus, John v. 4, must be read, ^^ For a 
messenger went down at a certain season into the 
pool, and troubled the water." In Acts xi. 13, we 
must read, "' And showed us how he had seen a mes- 
senger in his house :" Acts xii. 15, '' Then said they, 
it is his" (Peter's) messenger:''^ Matt. iv. 11, 
'' Then the devil leaveth him, and behold messengers 
came and ministered to him :" Matt, xviii. 10, 
'' Their messengers do always behold the face of my 
Father in Heaven :" 1 Cor. vi. 3, '' Know ye not, 



20 LAW or BAPTISM. 

that we shall judge messengers V Heb. i. 4, ''Being 
made so much better than the messengers .*'' Heb. 
ii. 16, " He took not on him the nature of messen- 
gers:^^ and Heb. xiii. 2, " For some have entertained 
messengers unawares." I confess that there is 
quite as good reason for making Angel read messen- 
ger, as there is for making Baptize read immerse." 

The word Church, too, must express no more 
than the heathen idea of a town-meeting, or assem- 
bly. But clearly the 'New Testament ecclesia does 
mean something which it never could mean in 
classic Greek. Thus, in 1 Cor. xii. 28, "And God 
hath set some in the Church, first Apostles," &c. ; 
it is not a simple assembly, or congregation, that is 
intended ; so, Eph. i. 22, " And gave him to be head 
over all things to the Church,'^'' it is no congregation 
that is intended, but the universal policy of Christ's 
people, in all lands, at all time, on earth and in 
Heaven. Perhaps we should not have had either 
Church or Angel proscribed from the Bible, had it 
not been essential to find some company for the poor 
banished word Baptize. 

The same reason existed for converting the Greek 
Baptizo into the English Baptize, as for converting 
Angelos into Angel, There was no word in English 
which would fill up the idea. If baptism was to be 
performed by sprinkling, it would not do to translate 
Baptizo by the word sprinkle, because all sprinkling 
is not baptism. If baptism were exclusively by 
immersion, still the word immerse would not express 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 21 

the whole or the essential idea ; and all immersion 
is not baptism. The word Baptize in the New Testa- 
ment refers less to the manner of the application of 
water, than to the design and import of the applica- 
tion ; it is a sacred application : a ritual application : 
denoting a ritual purifying, and referring to an impor- 
tant and essential truth for its signification. The 
[N'ew Testament use of the word involved a refer- 
ence to these ideas, just as the word Baptize does 
now ; and neither of the words, sprinkle, pour, im- 
merse, has the essential quality of referring to these 
ideas. Thus: if I go and throw myself off from 
one of the wharves at high tide, I am immersed 
beyond question ; but am I baptized ? Our young 
men and boys immerse themselves many times 
every summer ; but are they baptized ? I think all 
would deem it improper to say so. The funda- 
mental idea of baptism is wanting. 

It would therefore be an inadequate and improper 
translation to substitute the word immerse for the 
word baptize, in every place in the jSTew Testament.; 
as much as it would to make that substitution which 
should make the Sadducees deny the existence of 
such a thing as a ''messenger," or ''wind." The 
translators of our Bible, as intelligent and honest 
men, could not translate "Baptizo^^ by '^Immerse^^ 
on this ground alone : and I shall show that they 
could not on another : as in the New Testament the 
word denotes often an application of water (or of 
something else), by sprinkling or by pouring. It is 



22 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

used often where the idea of immersion is entirely 
excluded. 

Indeed, if any fault is to be found with the word 
Baptize, as though it were a Greek word, instead of 
a translation, precisely the same objection applies to 
the words '^Immerse^^ and "Immersion.''^ These 
are as purely Latin, as " Baptize" is Greek : and we 
might with the same propriety turn round and say, 
Why do you not translate those Latin words ? Do 
you mean to ''keep people in ignorance," and ''pro- 
mote a union of Church and State," by talking to 
the people, like the Pope, in Latin? 

To my mind, the noise that is made about the 
non-translation of the word Baptize, is utterly with- 
out foundation. To adopt the principles on which 
the noise is made, and carry them out, would lead 
to gross absurdity. To say that people would never 
have made any question about the mode of baptism 
if the word had only been translated immerse, is 
only to say that if the word had been improperly 
translated, the people would have been misled. 
There is no reason in the world, that I know of, for 
thinking that our translators were either ignorant or 
dishonest in this matter. Had they not turned 
Baptizo into an English word, they must have ex- 
pressed it by a circumlocution that would have 
amounted to a gloss, rather than a translation, or 
they must have coined a new word for the purpose. 

Besides, while so large a part of the learned 
world fully believe that Baptism in the New Testa- 
ment often signified an application of water which 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 23 

was performed by sprinkling or by pouring ; how 
could we have a Bible in which all denominations 
may agree, if we insist upon translating the word 
Baptize either by " immerse, ^^ by ^^pouVj^^ or by 
'' sprinkle ?" Were there no other reason, this 
would be sufficient for adopting the original word, 
instead of translating it by either. 

And yet, our Baptist brethren have broken off 
from the national Bible Society, for the very reason 
that it will not be thus instrumental in putting forth 
to the world a sectarian Bible ! They have a de- 
nominational Bible Society, entitled the "American 
and Foreign Bible Society, ^^ which issues its foreign 
translations on the principle of substituting the 
word immerse for baptize : and by their notes at the 
beginning of the New Testament they have, in 
effect, done the same for the English translation : 
with how little reason, I have shown. 

I say not this out of disrespect or fault-finding. 
The right of conscience and of private judgment is 
theirs. Most freely, with no disturbance or com- 
plaint on our part, let them enjoy it. I only aim to 
point out what I consider the error of the principle. 
Whether I have succeeded, you will judge. We 
impeach not their integrity in the least. Would 
that our integrity in this matter, and our rights of 
conscience and of private judgment, might be equally 
respected. But it is with no less grief than aston- 
ishment, that I read in the papers the last month, 
the following "He solution^ ^ of the '' American and 



24 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

Foreign Bible Society," at their anniversary on the 
28th of April of the present year.* 

^^ Resolved J that by the fact, that the nations of 
the earth must now look to the Baptist denomina- 
tion ALONE FOR FAITHFUL TRANSLATIONS OF THE 

WORD OF God, a responsibility is imposed upon 
them, demanding for its full discharge, an unwonted 
degree of union, of devotion, and of strenuous and 
persevering effort throughout the entire body. " 

That our Baptist brethren mean to be faithful in 
translating the w^ord of God, we doubt not. But 
are we to believe that all the missionaries of Pro- 
testant Christendom throughout the world, save ''the 
Baptist denomination alone, '^ have given to the poor 
heathen unfaithful translations of the w^ord of God ? 
Can no ''faithful translation" come from any de- 
nomination on earth save one?f Are the ^'nations 



^ A.D. 1840. It was moved by Prof. Eaton, of Hamilton 
Institute, and seconded by Rev. Mr. Malcom. 

f In the report of the American and Foreign Bible Society, 
for 1840 (p. 39), the translations made by all other denomi- 
nations are stigmatized as ''Versions in which the real 
meanings of . . . words, are purposely kept out of sight," 
... so that "Baptists cannot circulate faithful versions . . . 
unless they print them at their own expense." They ask (p. 
49), "Shall we look on unconcernedly while unfaithful ver- 
sions (as we hold them) are circulated?" They assert (p. 
45), "It is known that the British and Foreign Bible So- 
ciety, and the American Bible Society, have virtually com- 
bined to OBSCURE at least a part of Divine Revelation ;" and 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 25 

of the earth," according to the tenor of this resolu- 
tion, dependent on ''the Baptist denomination alone'' 
for this ? 

that ''these societies . . . continue to circulate versions of 
the Bible, unfaithful, at least so far as the subject of bap- 
tism is concerned ; and that they are by this means propa- 
gating their peculiar sentiments under the auspices, and at 
the expense of the millions of all denominations who con- 
tribute to their funds ; and who are thus made the uncon- 
scious instruments of diffusing the opinions of a part'y, instead 
of the uncorrupted word of Jehovah. ^^ 

This last paragraph is not less remarkable for its delibe- 
rate charge of dishonesty upon all other denominations than 
for its singular admission of that, which if it be a fact — it 
seems to me — is fatal to the immersion scheme. The allega- 
tion is, that to transfer bapiizo into baptize, instead of ren- 
dering it by the ^Y ord Immerse, is ^^ to propagate the peculiar 
sentiments'' of Pedobaptists. _That is, the word baptizois so 
used in the New Testament, as almost without fail to lead 
those who learn its meaning from the Bible alone to conclude 
that it does not, in the Bible, mean immersion ; and if you 
leave people to learn its meaning from the context for them-^ 
selves, you ''propagate the peculiar sentiments" of Pedo- 
baptists among them! Nay, the same effect will be pro- 
duced when such a Bible is given by Baptist hands, and ac- 
companied by Baptist instructions ! If Baptists circulate 
such aversion, they "are thus made the unconscious instru- 
ments of diffusing the opinions'' of the ^' party" — of Pedo- 
baptists ! 

I believe it. It is even so. But the conclusion is (and the 

objection of our Baptist brethren unwittingly adopts this 

very conclusion as its basis), that the word baptizo, as it is 

used in the New Testament, does not mean immerse ; and 

3 



26 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

Having remarked so far upon the principles of in- 
terpretation, I come now to make an application of 
those principles to the mode of arguing adopted bj 
our Baptist brethren. 

It was first attempted to prove that Baptize means 
exclusively to immerse, from the etymology of the 
word. Baptize is truly a derivative from Bapto: 
and the primitive meaning of Bapto is to ''dip/' or 
to ''immerse.'' It was contended that it always 
means to immerse. This was long urged and most 
strenuously insisted on as the foundation of the Bap- 
tist argument — that Bapto means nothing but to dip 
or immerse. 

But upon examination it was found that the 
meaning of Bapto had undergone important changes; 
that it often meant only to color, from an allusion 
simply to the known effect of dipping, and not to 
the ACT of dipping : and so it is often used, in in- 
stances where dipping is wholly out of the question. 
Thus Hippocrates says of a certain liquid, that when 
it drops upon the garments, they are "Bapto^d,^^ or 
stained. They are Bapto^d, by dropping the liquid 
upon them.* 

will not be so understood by those who judge of its meaning 
by its use in the sacred writings. But to insinuate that 
Pedobaptists mean to ''corrupt the word of Jehovah," or 
" to diffuse the opinions of a party," instead of the ''uncor- 
rupted" word of God, by so transferring the word, can 
scarcely be believed. 

"Carson, p. 60. 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 21 

So Homer, speaking of a battle of frogs and mice 
on the borders of the lake, says (s^art'ts'to ai^ati 
%i^yrj) — ''The lake was Bapto^d with blood." In 
order to maintain the position that Bapto always 
means immerse, it was contended that, by a figure, 
the lake was here represented as dipped in the 
blood of a mouse ! Indeed, on the ground then 
taken by Dr. Gale and by others, it was neces- 
sary to contend for this ; for if they could not 
make it out, their foundation was gone. But 
since Carson showed the absurdity of the ground, 
it has been generally abandoned. And yet, while 
the ground is given up, the tracts based on this 
ground are still in circulation, and do their work 
in making proselytes on the strength of an ar- 
gument which well-informed Baptists have in 
general given up as thoroughly exploded. Such a 
change in the meaning of a word is a very common 
occurrence, and it is conceded on all hands that the 
derivation of a word is no certain index to its 
meaning. 

Thus the word ^' Tint " comes from a Latin word 
(Tingo), which originally meant to dip, then it meant 
to color or '' tinge,^^ and now we speak of the '' tints " 
of the clouds or of the flowers, without ever think- 
ing that the flowers or the clouds have been dipped 
to give them their coloring. So the word ^'Spirit " 
comes from the Latin ''Spiritus,^^ of which the 
original meaning was "a hreath.^^ But what mortal 
vvill now contend that a spirit is nothing but breath ? 



88 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

And yet there is the same reason for complaining 
that the word spirit is an untranslated Latin word, 
that there is for complaining that Baptize is an un- 
translated Greek word, and the reason from ety- 
mology for making spirit mean breath is just as 
strong as for making Baptize mean immerse from its 
derivation from Bapto. So the words '' hind " and 
"■ bonds " originally meant to tie up or manacle with 
cords or chains. But who thinks now of putting 
cords or fetters on a man when he is '^ bound " to 
keep the peace or to appear in court, or when he is 
put under '' bonds " to fulfil the condition of a bar- 
gain or agreement? 

The mode of making out immersion from the deri- 
vation of Baptizo having been overthrown, and its 
very elements scattered to the wind, the learned 
Carson has taken another ground, and this is the 
one now universally relied on. I refer to Carson, 
because his research has made this field his own on 
the Baptist side of the question, because he is un- 
doubtedly a very learned and able man, the chief, 
indeed, on the Baptist side in this part of the field 
of controversy, because their writers are fond of re- 
ferring to his arguments as something which can 
never be overthrown, and because, indeed, all the 
more recent works, to which I have had access, are 
little else than Carson over again. For these reasons 
I shall follow his argument, fully confident that if it 
does not stand in him, it will never stand in the 
strength of any man. 



PRINCIPLES OF INTJERPRETATION. 29 

Mr. Carson has with immense labor hunted over 
the Greek classics, and found, as he thinks, that the 
word Baptizo always means, in classic Greek, to dip 
or immerse. That this is its common meaning in 
classic Greek is certain, though I think he has failed 
to make it out to be its exclusive meaning. 

Having settled its classic meaning, he then at- 
tempts to make the 'New Testament meaning in 
every instance conform to it. Here lies the tug. He 
cannot accomplish this unless we will allow him to 
take for granted the thing to be proved. The New 
Testament use is — as I think I shall show — most 
clearly and indefeasibly against him. 

Here lies his error, and it is fundamental. He 
relies on the classic Greek to determine the IS'ew 
Testament Greek, while the facts in the case are as 
much at war with his conclusions, as the facts in 
another case would be with the conclusions which 
should interpret ''provisions " in the law of Edwar4 
III. to mean victuals, or with the reasonings which 
would make our Lord sa}^, that men must be born 
of '' water and of wind,'' or with those which would 
make the Sadducees deny that there is any '' mes- 
senger " or ''wind." 

Here is a point to be settled. What do Matthew, 
and Mark, and Luke, and John, and Paul mean by 
Baptize ? To settle this point Homer, and Pindar, 
and Xenophon are brought up to testify as to the 
meaning of the word in their country and in their 
day. Does this settle the question ? Is it certain 



80 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

that the word, when adapted to Jewish ideas and 
Jewish rites, meant precisely what it did in the days 
of Homer and Pindar ? I humbly conceive it might 
be as well to call the Evangelists and Apostles them- 
selves, and ask them what they meant. But, says 
the examiner, Pindar, and Homer, and the rest of 
the Greek classics, have settled the question what 
Evangelists and Apostles must mean, and so, I shall 
show, he determines that they shall mean, if he has 
to get this meaning out of them by torture. But 
what is the use of calling up Matthew^, and Mark, 
and the Apostles, as witnesses at all, if the question 
is settled before they come ? 

Carson, having finished his appeal to the classics, 
takes his position. He takes his '^ position " before 
we are through with the evidence, or even come to 
that part of the evidence on which the question really 
turns. Before coming to the Xew Testament he 
says (p. t9), '' My position is, that it always signifies 
to dip, never expressing anything hut mode.^^ He 
admits that he has all the lexicographers against 
him,* and I shall show that if the lexicographers 

* Our Baptist brethren have the lexicographers against 
them on the question of the exclusive sense immerse more thor- 
oughly than many of them seem to be aware of. All the 
lexicographers give other significations. And even the 
learned Cox is much mistaken here. He defies us (p. 83) ''to 
point to a single lexicon which does not give dipping, plunging, 
or immersing, as the unquestionably settled, and universally 
primitive meaning of the word." 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 31 

make any account of the New Testament or of the 
Christian fathers, they ought to be against him. His 

The defiance can be met, and tliat on authority which our 
Baptist brethren are fond of quoting as the very best — the 
native Greek. Mr. R. Robinson (Hist, of Bapt.), quoted in 
Pengilly (p. 72), says [and it is often fondly repeated], <' The 
native Greeks must understand their own language better 
than foreigners, and they have always understood the word 
baptism to signify dipping.^'' ''In this case, the Greeks are 
UNEXCEPTIONABLE GUIDES." If our Baptist brethren choose 
to make an issue here, be it so. Simply to meet this chal- 
lenge, I copy the following from Chapin's "Primitive 
Church," pp. 43, 44. 

''The oldest native Greek lexicographer is Hesychius, 
who lived in the fourth century of the Christian era. He 
gives only the word BaTrrw \bapto'\, and the only meaning he 
gives the word is avrXeoy [^antleo'], to draw ov pump water. 

"Next in order comes Sdidas, a native Greek, who wrote 
in the tenth century. He gives only the derivative Barrn^o) 
[baptizol, and defines it by ttXvco) [plu7io'], to wash.^^ — "We 
come down to the present century, at the beginning of which 
we find Gases, a learned Greek, who, with great labor and 
pains, compiled a large and valuable lexicon of the ancient 
Greek language. His book, in three volumes quarto, is a 
work deservedly held in high estimation by all, and is gene- 
rally used by native Greeks." The following are his 
definitions of bapto and bapiizo. (Ed. Venice, 3 vols., 4to.) 
^'BAirra Ibapto]. 

— Bp£X<^ [brecho], to wet, moisten, bedew. 

— ^jrXui/w [pluno], to wash [^viz. clothes']. 

— ysiM^o) [gemizo], to fill. 

— Bu^i^oj [buthizo], to dip. 

— airXco) [antleo], to draw, to pump water. 



32 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

mistake lies here : he has appealed to Pindar, and 
Aristotle, and the rest of the heathen classics, while 
the proper appeal lies not to these, but from these 
to Paul, and Matthew, and Mark, and Luke, and 
John, and the fathers who wrote in Greek. He has 
taken his stand too soon, and decided the question 
before coming to the most important testimony. 

But having made his appeal and taken his posi- 
tion, Paul and Mark must be stretched on his bed 
of heathen classics ; and I shall show how unmerci- 
fully they are stretched and racked in the process. 

Thus, when in the Apocryphal book of Ecclesias- 
ticus, which was translated into Greek for the use 
of the Alexandrian Jews, about ITO years before 
Christ, it is said (Eccl. xxxiv. 30), '' He that ivasheth 

BAimza [baptizo']. 

— Bpcxoi [brecho], io wet, moisten, bedew. 

— Xouo) [louo], io wash, to bathe. 

— avrXEo) [antleo], to draw, to pump water. ''^ 
The work is principally a translation of Schneider's Greek- 
German Lexicon, upon which Passow's is based. The signi- 
fications constitute rather a glossary than the strict defi- 
nitions of a lexicon, and each signification is applicable, not 
to every passage in the language, but only to its own class 
of passages. 

Though this is sufficient evidence that the word, among 
the Greeks, does not exclusively mean to immerse, we base 
no argument on the credit of any lexicographer. The sole 
object of making this reference is to meet the confident chal- 
lenge which is so constantly thrown out by OTir Baptist 
brethren. 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 33 

himself because of a dead body and toucheth it 
again, what availeth his washing. ^^ The word wash- 
eth here is BaTtTfi^ofievo^ — ''being baptized.'' The 
allusion is to Numb. xix. 16. 

''And whosoever toucheth one that is slain with a 
sword in the open fields, or a dead body," &e. — "A 
clean person shall take the hyssop, and dip it in the 
water, and spi^inkle it upon the tent," &c. . . . "and 
upon him that toucheth a bone, or one slain, or a 
grave.*' The conclusion should be, I think, inevit- 
ably, that the baptizing here was done by sprinkling, 
and that here is a clear instance in the Alexandrine 
Greek in which the word baptize is used to denote 
a purification by sprinkling, with no reference to 
dipping or immersing at all. 

But Carson says, lN"o. " When I have proved the 
meaning of a word by the authority of the whole 
consent of Greek literature, I will not surrender it 
to the supposition of the strict adherence of the 
Jewish nation, in the time of writing the Apocrypha, 
to the Mosaic ritual." 

The question then comes to this dilemma ; either 
the Jews had abandoned this mode of purifying from 
a dead body, as specifically and minutely pointed 
out by God — or, here was a baptism by sprink- 
ling. Carson is driven here to assume, and that 
without the least shadow or pretence of authority, 
that when God had commanded a purification by 
sprinkling, the Jewish nation had turned about and 
made an immersion of it. If we do not allow this 



34 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

assumption to pass with no proof, and receive it as 
an established certainty, then Carson's ''position^' 
has been overthrown, and here is a baptism by 
sprinkling. 

But difficulties multiply upon him as he proceeds. 
Thus, in Mark vii. 4: ''And when they come from 
the market, except they wash, they eat not." The 
original is, ''Except they baptize themselves, they 
eat not ;" which, I shall show hereafter, is, Except 
they ''wash their hands,^^ i. e., perform a ceremonial 
purification upon them. 

The learned Campbell, who wished very much to 
establish immersion as the proper meaning of bap- 
tism, could see no other mode of getting along here 
than by supposing that their hands were dipped, and 
so the immersion (or baptism) predicated of the 
hands. He knew very well that no history of Jew- 
ish customs could furnish a scrap of evidence to 
show that whenever Jews had been in the market, 
they always immersed their whole bodies. But un- 
fortunately for him the original language is so defi- 
nite as to show conclusively that the baptism here 
spoken of is the baptism of the persons: "Except 
they (the persons) are baptized;" not "Except their 
hands are baptized." Carson reproves this fault of 
Campbell (p. 101), and says, that Dr. Campbell's 
notion that this baptism refers to the hands as a 
washing by " dipping them" he " does not approve." 
He very properly calls it " an ingenious conceit, 
without any authority from the practice of the Ian- 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 35 

guage." But how does Carson himself dispose of 
the difficulty ? In a very summary way, indeed. 
He has shown the meaning of baptizo from the hea- 
then classics ; and he proves the universal custom 
of the Jews, always to immerse themselves, from 
the meaning of the word! I beg his pardon; the 
meaning of the word is the very thing that is in 
question here. We cannot allow him to prove a 
matter in question by first assuming it as true. 
What is the historical fact as to what the Jews did 
before eating whenever they came from the market? 
Settle this, and you settle the meaning of the word 
baptize in this connection. But no ; Carson is de- 
termined that the historical fact shall be settled by 
the meaning of the word, and the thing in dispute 
shall be proved by itself; no matter though all his- 
tory is against it. He has proved the meaning of 
the word from the heathen classics ; and no matter 
for any difficulties in the way ; the Evangelist shall 
mean immersion by it. No matter though it is 
proved that the Jews purified themselves by pouring 
water on the hands; and that ''the manner of the 
purifying of the Jews" was from ''water pots, hold- 
ing about three firkins" (at the largest computation 
about two-thirds of a barrel) "a-piece," from which 
water might be poured, or run on the hands ; but 
in which no man could be immersed. " I care not," 
says he, "that ten thousand such examples were 
brought forward ;" he insists that the word baptize 
shall here mean to dip, viz., to dip the whole body; 



36 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

"because Greek literature so uses the word bap- 
tize.'^ No matter how improbable it may be that 
the Jews always immersed their whole bodies as 
often as they came from the market; uo matter 
though no record or trace of such a custom is found 
anywhere in the world, unless it be in this assumed 
meaning of the word baptize ; no matter though no 
such custom has been heard of the Jews, wherever 
they have been dispersed throughout the world for 
so many ages to this day ; no matter that though 
the purifying is still kept, it is still performed by 
pouring water on the hands, or holding them in a 
stream of water running from a vessel, — Carson 
maintains still and stoutly that, " We have here the 
authority of the Holy Spirit for the Jewish custom." 
''If," says he, ''I have established the acceptation 
of this word by the consent of use, even an inex- 
plicable difficulty in this case would not affect the 
certainty of my conclusion." I humbly beg leave 
to differ from him ; and you may judge whether I 
have alleged sufficient reason. The Holy Spirit has 
indeed said that the Jews were baptized as often as 
they came from the market ; but the Holy Spirit has 
not said that the word baptize here means to im- 
merse. The meaning is the thing m question. And 
it seems to me, that a reference to the plain facts in 
the case authorizes us to consider rather this, that 
the Holy Spirit regarded that as a baptism of the 
person, which was performed by pouring water on 
the hands, as I shall show more particularly here- 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 31 

after. If Carson has failed here, he is overthrown, 
and entirely so. I do think that he is shown to have 
reasoned from false principles, and to have failed. 
And I know of few among the more intelligent Bap- 
tists, who will not be ready to admit, that if the 
very basis of Carson's argument be overthrown, the 
whole fabric of their peculiar system is broken up 
and falls to the ground. 

Carson argues in the same manner with regard to 
baptism of the tables (couches) in Mark vii. 4. He 
says (p. 114), ''But with respect to Mark vii. 4, 
though it were proved that the couches could not be 
immersed, I would not yield an inch of the ground 
I have occupied." Now how shall we argue with a 
man who will not admit an absolute impossibility to 
be any obstacle in the way of his theory ; the 
couches were baptized, and if it ''be proved'^ that 
"the couches could not be immersed/' he will not 
yield an inch ; he will maintain still that they were 
immersed. "And I may add," says he (p. 116), 
" that the couches might have been so constructed, 
that they might be conveniently taken to pieces." 
Indeed ! what shall we not allow him to suppose 
might have been, rather than grant the possibility 
that the Jews '^mighV^ have used this word "bap- 
tize" in a sense different from that of the old hea- 
then Greeks? 

JSTor would it seem to make any matter to Mr. 
Carson, how often people had been "baptized" in 
other modes than immersion ; he would still main- 
4 



38 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

tain his ground. '' I care not/' says he, '' I care not 
if there had never been a human being immersed in 
water since the creation of the world, if the word 
denotes immersion, and if Christ enjoins it, I will 
contend for it as confidently as if all nations had 
been in the practice of baptizing" (immersing) ^'each 
other" (p. 155). True, if the word means immerse, 
and NEVER means anything else. But I humbly 
suppose that the common practice of a people who 
called a purifying by sprinkling or pouring, a haptism, 
would have some little weight upon the question 
what that people did in fact understand by the words 
^'baptize" and 'loaptism." 

So when Carson comes to the baptism of the 
Holy Ghost, it is nothing to him that the Scriptures 
represent this uniformly under the mode of "pour- 
ing," " coming down like rain," and '' shedding 
forth." He says, ''It is a fixed point, that baptism 
means immersion ;" '' and in the examination of the 
reference in the baptism of the Spirit, nothing can 
BE ADMITTED inconsistent with this ;" and then 
adds (p. 164), '' The baptism of the Spirit must have 
a reference to immersion, because — baptism is im- 
mersion!'''' I would reply. That, Mr. Carson, is the 
very thing to be proved ; whether baptism is, exclu- 
sively, immersion. But he insists upon it directly 
in the same page, and puts his words in italics — 
^^Pouring cannot he the figurative baptism, because 
baptism never literally denotes pouring. ^^ ^^ Pouring 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 39 

could not represent the pouring of the Spirit, be- 
cause the Spirit is not literally poured." 

I would reply, — But, Mr. Carson, does not God 
himself say, ''I will pour out my Spirit?" But, 
replies he, '^ Believers are said to h^ immersed into 
the Spirit, not because there is anything like im- 
mersion in the manner of the reception of the Spirit, 
but from the resemblance between an object soaked 
in a fluid, and the sanctification of all the members 
of the body and faculties of the soul " (pp. 16Y, 168). 

I say nothing about the resemblance between 
''soaking" and ''sanctifying," but he says truly, 
there is " nothing like iramersion " in the manner of 
receiving the Spirit, nor, of course, is there in the 
manner of conferring it ; yet a baptism there is, 
Christ being witness, and the mode of that baptism 
is represented by a '' pouring out,^^ " shedding forth, ^^ 
"coming down,^^ '^falling upon.^'^ 

But immediately Mr. Carson responds (p. 168), 
" There was a real baptism (immersion) in the 
emblems of the Spirit." 

I answer, Christ did not say, ye shall be "im- 
mersed " into the '' emblems " of the Spirit ; he said, 
"ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost," with 
the Spirit itself, not with its "emblems." 

I would follow Mr. Carson further here, did I deem 
it necessary. But I think I have gone far enough 
to show that he has failed, most signally failed, in 
that which is the very foundation and element of 
his argument. He will prove everything if we will 



40 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

let him assume everything. But we cannot. His 
principles of reasoning are unsound, and if you allow 
him these unsound principles, he still begs the ques- 
tion. You have seen how the Evangelists are put 
to the torture when they are stretched on this Pro- 
crustean bed of the heathen Greeks. Even granting 
that Carson has rightly settled the question with 
regard to the heathen Greeks, I think I have shown 
his argument to be as inconclusive as that which 
should make the word " Provisions -' in the statute 
of Edward III. mean victuals, or as that which 
would make regeneration consist in being born of 
^' water and of wind,'' or as that which would make 
the peculiar infidelity of the Sadducees consist in 
denying that there is any ^^ rising up,^^ or '^ mes- 
senger,^^ or ^^ wind.'''' 

We might rest the debate here, but I think that 
Carson has even failed to make out his case from 
the Greek classics. The limits of this work forbid 
me to enter upon an extended survey of this part of 
the field ; nor is it necessary, as a failure in a single 
instance is fatal to Mr. Carson's argument. Take, 
then, the instance cited by Mr. Carson (p. 61 of his 
last edition) — the Sybilline verse quoted by Plutarch 
in his life of Theseus — which, says Mr. Carson, 
*' exactly determines the meaning of baptizo." The- 
seus consulted the Oracle at Delphi concerning his 
government. The Oracle predicted the safety of the 
new state, and identifying Theseus with his state, 
it concluded with the words, " Thou shalt ride a 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 41 

bladder in the surge ;" or in the free translation of 
Langhorne : 

*' Safe o'er the surges of the foaming tide." 

With this, says Plutarch, agrees the Sybil's prophecy 
concerning Athens, 'A^xbq BaTt-tL^'vj 8vvao ds toi ov Osfii^ 
htLv. To this verse Mr. Carson gives the following 
translation : 

" Thou may est be dipped, O bladder, but art not 
fated to sink !" 

I agree with Mr. Carson that this exactly deter- 
mines the meaning of the word Baptize in this con- 
nection, and is worth a hundred ordinary passages 
for fixing critically the accurate classical meaning ; 
but unfortunately for Carson's argument, it fixes it 
against him. 

The aaxos (^askos) is the ancient bottle, of the w^hole 
skin of an animal, which, blown up like a bladder, 
rides the waves without sinking or even suffering 
an immersion. The Oracle says, " Thou mayest be 
baptized, bottle, but it is not allowed thee to — Svvac 
(dunai). Determine the meaning of dunai here, and 
you fix the meaning of baptize in the same con- 
nection. Mr. Carson assumes that it means to sinkj 
in distinction from a simple dipping into or under. 
But such is not its meaning. Whoever will consult 
the numerous instances cited by Donnegan will per- 
ceive that the primary meaning of the word is as he 
states it, '' to go into or under,^^ " to enter,^^ " to pene- 
trate.'^^ This primary idea is the one which he clearly 
4-x- 



42 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

traces in all the examples of its secondary significa- 
tion. Not an example can be found in which it 
signifies to sink, in distinction from a simple dipping. 
The idea is that of entering, penetrating (by passing 
from one medium into another), e. g. Bf^.o^ ft^ ^yxf- 
^axov S{5, the arrow penetrated the brain. Hom. II. 
xviii. 3t6. 

So Crusius, in his Homeric Lexicon (translated by 
Prof. Henry Smith), gives, as the primary significa- 
tion of the word, ''to go into, to enter, to penetrate 
into, to plunge into,^^ which primary senses he traces 
in all the instances of its secondary significations 
throughout the Homeric writings. Nowhere does 
it signify a sinking, in distinction from a simple im- 
mersion, as Mr. Carson erroneously supposes. It 
is used for entering into a house, into a city, into a 
cave, and for plunging into the sea, where it cer- 
tainly signifies no sinking, in opposition to a simple 
immersing. 

The meaning is so certain that the derivative 8vtrj^ 
signifies a diver ; certainly not one who sinks, rather 
than one who simply plunges in and rises again. So 
the other derivative ^v'tixo<; signifies one expert in 
diving; surely not one expert in sinking to his de- 
struction, and that in direct opposition to simply 
plunging in and coming up again. The meaning of 
hvvai is further corroborated, and rendered absolutely 
certain, by the consideration that when a sinking is 
to be signified, or any thorough going down, xa-aa hvio 
(the intensive compound of 6ijco) is employed. 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 43 

The Oracular line then reads thus : 

"Thou mayest be baptized^ O bottle, but it is not 
allowed to thee to go under, ''^ Thou mayest be 
dashed, wet, washed, but it is not possible for thee 
to penetrate, go under. Here is a classic baptism 
in which it is impossible for the subject to go under 
water. 

Take another of Mr. Carson^s examples, p. 58. 
'' Plutarch, speaking of a Roman general dying of 
his wounds, says, that having dipped (baptized) his 
hand in blood, he wrote the inscription for a trophy." 
''Here," says Carson, ''the mode of the action can- 
not be questioned. The instrument of writing is 
dipped in the coloring fluid." Suppose we grant it. 
My pen is the instrument of writing, and I dip it in 
the ink when I write ; surely I never immerse it in 
ink when I write. When will our Baptist brethren 
cease this play upon the word dipping, when they 
are to prove a total immersion ! 

Another instance is cited by Carson (p. 21) from 
Aristotle, of " a land uninhabited, whose coast was 
full of sea-weeds," which at ebb tide, ^it] aTtti^s^Oai, 
was not baptized, but at full tide, xaifax^v^i69ai, was 
dashed over by the waves. The opposite of not 
being baptized here is, not the dipping of the land in 
the waves, but dashing the waves over the land, or, 
if you please, washing over it, overflowing it. Mr. 
Carson even is compelled to admit that " the water 
comes over the land," and that " there is no actual 
exemplification of the mode expressed by this word " 



44 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

(viz. in his sense of immersion). Yet very prepos- 
terously, as it seems to me, he still contends that 
the word here '' still expresses that mode/' and 
strange ! that ''the word has been employed for the 
very purpose of expressing it " (viz. the mode of im- 
mersion in this application of water to the land) ! 

Take another example (Carson, p. 59) : Homer 
representing the death of one of his heroes, says, 
''He strack him across the neck ^dth his heavy 
sword, and the whole sword became warm with 
blood." On this one scholiast remarks, that "the 
sword is represented as baptized in blood.'' Another 
says, " In that phrase Homer expresses himself with 
the greatest energy, signifying that the sword was 
so baptized as to be even warmed " Q^^ ^aTitisdevto^ 
ovTco rov |t©orj, <iij r& Os^uaieriai) ; ''by a strong figure," 
says Dr. Pond, "it might be said to be bathed in 
blood. But in this case the bathing must have been 
effected by the blood flowing over the sword." And 
Prof Ripley says at last, "the sword was so over- 
Jiowed [with blood] as even to become heated." 

So where Aristophanes, in his account of the 
Platonic banquet (Ripley, p. IT), says, "I am one 
of those (3£,3an;r65ufic5r, baptized) drenched yester- 
day," viz. with wine. He had not been immersed 
in wine, even in figure. So in another place, one 
had baptized (^^anttaaca) Alexander with wine. The 
figure is of drenching, not of immersing. 

Mr. Carson's ancient classics fail him, and we have 
seen that if thev did not, their entire ao-reement, in 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 45 

using the word to denote only an immersion, would 
by no means settle the question. We must go to 
the New Testament. We must learn the sacred use 
of the term. We must learn what Evangelists and 
Apostles deemed essential to baptism, and if we 
make anything essential which they did not, we are 
found guilty of adding to the word of God. 



46 LAW OF BATISM. 



II. 

MODE OF BAPTISM. 

SPRINKLING AND POURING, SCRIPTURAL MODES. 

So far, we have been occupied in discussing the 
principles of interpretation to be applied or admitted 
in determining what it is to baptize ; and in making 
an application of these principles to the mode of 
argumentation adopted by our Baptist brethren. 

I now proceed to the three inquiries laid down as 
the plan of my argument in the preceding chapter. 

I. What would the immediate disciples of 
OUR Lord understand from the simple face of 

the command " BAPTIZE ?'^ 

II. Is there satisfactory evidence that they 
always administered the ordinance of immer- 
sion? 

III. On the supposition that they did so, is 

THERE EVIDENCE THAT THEY CONSIDERED THAT ONE 
MODE ESSENTIAL? 

I. What would the immediate disciples of Christ 
understand from the simple face of the command 
''Baptize?" 

In Heb. ix. 10, we read of a ritual service, ''which 
stood only in meats and drinks, and divers wash- 



SPRINKLING AND POURING. 4:1 

iNGS,'^ In the original, it is (pva^opot^ ^0.7^ i6^oi^\ 
"Divers baptisms." 

There were, then, under the Old Testament dis- 
pensation, rituals, which, for three hundred years 
(or from the time that the Greek language was in- 
troduced into Palestine), were commonly called bap- 
tisms. We haye only to learn what these rituals 
were, to determine the meaning of the word baptize 
in the common language of the country in the time 
of Christ. The apostle does not leave us in doubt 
of this ; for he proceeds immediately to specify one 
of these baptisms, in v. 13, as '-'the blood of bulls and 
of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the 
unclean. '^ If these sanctify ''to the purifying of 
the jlesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ 
purge your conscience !^^ 

The persons and things were never immersed in 
blood ; they were sprinkled ; and these sprinklings 
Paul here calls baptisms. It should be noticed, too, 
that as the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer, sanc- 
tifieth to the purifying of the ''flesh,'' so the applica- 
tion of the "blood of Christ," which purgeth "the 
conscience," is repeatedly called the "sprinkling" 
(never the immersion) "of the blood of Christ." 

The " purifying of the flesh" by the ashes of 
a heifer, to which Paul here refers, is prescribed in 
Numbers xix. 1^, 18. "And for an unclean person, 
they shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of 
purification for sin, and running water shall be put 
thereto in a vessel, and a clean person shall sprinkle 



4:8 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon 
the persons that were there, and upon him that 
touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a 
grave. " 

It is added, that on the seventh day ''he shall 
bathe himself;" and our Baptist brethren are fond 
of saying that the ''Baptism refers to the bathing.'^ 
I am glad of the objection, because it distinctly re- 
cognizes the fact that Paul refers to these purifyings 
as among his "divers baptisms." But the objec- 
tion is idle, as Paul does not specify the " bathing^^ 
as any part of what he means ; but he does specify 
the '^ sprinkling.''^ He does not say that the bathing"*" 
"sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh," but he 
says it is " the blood of bulls and goats, and the 

^ If he did, the word bathing ^vfowldi not necessarily imply 
an immersion. Bathing here is synonymous with icashing. 

Dr. Edward Beecher remarks, that " of persons, no immer- 
sions at all are enjoined under the Mosaic ritual." "No 
washing of persons is ever enjoined" by the word tabal, to 
immerse, even in a single instance, nor by any word that 
denotes immersion — but, as I think, without exception, by 
the word Rahhats^ which denotes to wash, without any refer- 
ence to mode." '' Those who read the English version might 
suppose that, where the direction to bathe occurs, immer- 
sion is enjoined; but in every such case the original is only 
to wash." The word used in the command, is the same as 
that used in Gen. xviii. 4, " Let a little water, I pray you, 
be fetched, and wash your feet." Gen. xliii. 81, ''And he 
washedhi^ face, and went out." So Levit. xiv. 9, *'Also, he 
shall ivash his flesh in water, and he shall be clean." 



SPRINKLING AND POURING. 49 

ashes of the heifer sprinkling the unclean, that 
sanctifieth.'^ It is what is done by another hand 
(for a '^ clean person'^ must sprinkle the unclean), on 
which Paul's mind fastens as the baptism ; and he 
does not deem it necessary to specify anything else. 
And this application of blood, which was made by 
sprinkling, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the 
unclean, Paul calls a baptism. 

The current of his discourse leads him on to speak 
of another of the "divers baptisms,'' in ver. 15, and 
onward. Having made a comparison between the 
'^purifying of the flesh" by the sprinkling of blood, 
and of the ashes of a heifer, and the " purging of 
the conscience" by the '' sprinkling of the blood of 
Christ," he runs out the same parallel between the 
ritual of establishing the first testament under 
Moses, and the ritual of establishing the second 
under Christ. It is worthy of remark that the same 
form of ritual is still kept up ; it is still a sprinkling, 
and not an immersion. 'Tor when Moses had 
spoken every precept to all the people, according to 
the law, he took of the blood of calves and of goats, 
with water, and scarlet wood, and hyssop, and 
sprinkled the book and all the people. Moreover, 
he sprinkled likewise with blood both the tabernacle 
and all the vessels of the ministry." The argument 
is, that Christ, in ratifying the new covenant, must 
ratify it with his own blood; and the only modal 
application of this blood spoken of even in figure, is 
the '' sprinkling of the blood of Christ." The cur- 
5 



50 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

rent of his discourse, and the contrast which runs 
throughout his argument, shows that the ''divers 
baptisms" are still referred to in these purifyings so 
repeatedly described under the mode o^ spiHnkling .''^ 

He speaks of ^^ divers baptisms.''' Another of 
these is mentioned in Numb. viii. T: ''And this 
shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them'^ (viz. the 
Levites, to prepare them to enter upon the functions 
of their of&ce), " sprinkle water of purifying upon 
them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them 
wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean.'' 
Note here, that no man inducts himself into the 
priesthood, and all that was done to the Levite by 
another^s hand was the " sprinkling. '^^ The leper 
was in like manner to be cleansed by sprinkling, 
Lev. xiv. 9. And so pre-eminently is the sprinkling 
considered as the important element in the cleansing, 
that this alone is the outward part of the ritual 
pitched upon to designate the purifying with which 
Christ washes away the sins, and cleanses away the 
pollution of the soul. Thus, Isaiah lii. 15, "So 
shall he sprinkle many nations.'' Heb. xii. 24, 
"And sprinkling of the blood of Christ." 1 Pet. i. 
2, "And sprinkling of the blood of Christ." You 
never read of his ^^ Immersing many nations," nor 
of the '^Immersion of the blood of Christ;" no, 
never, in the word of God. 

But the IMPORT of baptism by water is this same 
cleansing away of sin by the blood of Christ. The 
washing away of sin is effected — not by the water — 



SPRINKLING AND POURING. 51 

but by the blood of Christ. Baptism by water sig- 
nifies this washing away of sins. Thus, ''Arise, 
and be baptized, and wash away thy sins."^ Now 
if the application of the sign is to resemble the ap- 
plication of the thing which performs the real cleans- 
ing, and to resemble it even in figure ; if the type is 
to resemble the antitype ; the shadow the substance ; 
then as it is the sprinkling of the blood of Christ 
that DOES the cleansing, surely it should be the 
sprinkling of the water in baptism that signifies 
the cleansing; immersion would spoil the resem- 
blance, and mar the significance of the sign. 

But not to come at the conclusion too soon, let us 
hold here upon the testimony of the facts so far 
considered. We have here, then, ''divers bap- 
tisms" performed by sprinkling. 

Turn now to Mark vii. 3, 4 — " For the Pharisees, 
and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, 
eat not ; holding the tradition of the elders. And 
when they come from the market, f except they 



■^ There is a curious mode of setting aside this argument, 
by considering baptism as designed to represent the burial 
and resurrection of Christ ! The word of God gives quite 
another view of the import of baptism; see Acts ii. 38, and 
xxii. 16. 

f Rosenmuller says, '^ The sense is, 'when they come from 
the market {i. e. any public place), they do not take their 
food except they wash their hands.' Ayopa (the market) 
signifies not only a concourse of men, or place of public 



52 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

WASH, they eat not ; and many other things there 
be which they have received to hold, as the wash- 
ing of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels and 
tables." 

The words ^'wash,^^ and "washing^^ are in the ori- 
ginal {i5a7itt6covTfaL), except they have baptized 
themselves; smd (^arcto^fiov^), ''Baptisms." 

See how this subject is introduced. ''And when 
they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled 
(that is to say, with unwashen) hands, they found 
fault." Then follows the explanation: "For the 
Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wa.sh their 
hands oft, eat not ; and when they come from the 
market, except they wash, they eat not." See Matt. 
XV. 2 — " Then the Pharisees and Scribes asked him. 
Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradi- 
tion of the elders,* but eat bread with unwashen 
hands?" Compare this with Luke xi. 38. A Phari- 
see marvelled that the Lord Jesus " had not first 
wo.shed before dinner" (original, siSaTifiGOTj)] that "he 
had not first been baptized before dinner." The 



resort, in whicli provisions are sold, and in wliich trials 
are held, but all similar public places. Ayopa — public places, 
opposed to private dwellings. 

* " The rule of the rabbins was, that if they washed their 
hands well in the morning the first thing they did, it would 
serve for all day, provided they kept alone ; but if they 
went into company, they must not, at their return, either 
eat or pray, till they had washed their hsmds.'' ~3Iatthew 
Henry, on Mark vii. 4. 



SPRINKLING AND POURING. 63 

fault of the Lord Jesus and of the disciples, in the eyes 
of the Jews, was, that they had not first been baptized 
(or baptized themselves) before eating; i. e., they had 
eaten with unwashen hands. The washing of the 
hands, therefore, was a baptism; and, as the form 
of the original language, as well as our translation, 
shows, a baptism of the persons, not simply of the 
hands, i. e., they (the persons) were baptized when 
their hands had been washed for a ceremonial puri- 
fvinor. 

There is this further peculiarity about it; their 
hands were not commonly dipped or immersed, but 
washed in running water, as streaming from a 
pitcher or from a watering pot.* 

* The practice is continued in the Eastern world to this 
day. Before meals, a servant comes round with a pitcher, 
2Lnd pours water on the hands of those about to eat, or they 
are otherwise cleansed with running or streaming water. The 
custom is a very old one, as is apparent from 2 Kings, iii. 
11, *' Here is Elisha, the son of Shaphat, who poured water on 
the hands of Elijah," i. e., who was servant to him: the very 
common duty of a servant is used as an appellation to desig- 
nate the relation of a servant. 

The custom of washing the hands before eating, as it still 
prevails in the East, was this : " When they wash, the water 
is poured from a vase upon the hands over a basin — they 
never make use of a basin or a tub to wash in, as is the 
practice elsewhere." — Oscanyan in Kurtz, p. 179. 

In John ii. 6, &c., where there were set six water-pots of 
stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews ; at the 
time of the middle of the feast these water-pots appear to 

5* 



54 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

I am aware that attempts have been made to set 
aside the force of these passages, in Mark vii. and 
Luke xi. But these attempts have done no more 
than to demonstrate the strength of our position. 
There are only two possible grounds of resisting 
the conclusion. One of which is, that the baptism 
is predicated of the hands, as though the hands were 
immersed ; and the other, that while the Jews on 
many occasions washed their hands, yet as often as 
they came from the market, they immersed their 
whole bodies. 

As was noticed in the previous discourse, Dr. 
Campbell takes the first ground, and Mr. Carson the 
second. Campbell, appearing to know full well the 
absurdity of supposing that ''all the Jews" always 
'' immersed" themselves as often as they came from 
the market before eating, referred the baptism to the 
hands, and maintained an immersion, but an immer- 
sion of the hands only. Carson replies, that he con- 
siders Campbell's view of the matter as ''nothing 
but an ingenious device, without any authority from 
the practice of the language." Such it most un- 
doubtedly is. Xo scholar could ever have been be- 



have "been empty. The purifying (which Mark and Luke call 
a baptizing) had been performed, not by the guests immers- 
ing themselves or dipping their hands in the water-pots, but 
by "drawing out," and probably by carrying and pouring 
the water on the hands. If this be so, then our Baptist 
brethren are left destitute of that last, but unavailing 
refuge, the "dipping of the hands." 



SPRINKLING AND POURINa. 55 

trajed into such a "device/' save from the hard ne- 
cessity of making out an '^immersion'' in this case, 
by some means or other. Carson, on the other 
hand, maintains that we are taught here, that " all 
the Jews," whenever they have been at the market, 
never eat except they have immersed the whole body. 
He says (p. 68), '' It ought to have been translated 
' except they dip themselves they eat not.' '' What 
does he bring to prove it ? The word baptize ; bap- 
tize means immerse ; therefore they were immersed, 
the Holy Spirit being witness ! But the very ques- 
tion is, whether baptized means immerse. The Holy 
Spirit has said they were baptized, and has so ex- 
plained it as to leave us to understand that they 
were baptized (ceremonially purified) by washing 
their hands. The Holy Spirit has said they were 
baptized, but the Spirit has not told us that by bap- 
tize he means immerse. 

What was the fact ? Did the Jews always im- 
merse themselves as often as they came from the 
market? To me it appears clear that the Holy 
Spirit has explained what the fact was ; they washed 
their hands. And what does Mr. Carson bring to 
show that they always immersed their whole bodies 
as often as they came from the market ? Nothing 
but this idle begging of the question concerning the 
word baptize. There is not a scrap of evidence in 
anything else in the wide world to show it. The 
manners and customs of the Jews were well known. 
They have been known since throughout the four 



56 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

quarters of the globe, wherever their nation has 
been scattered and peeled; 'the washing of the hands 
still exists ; but nothing — no, nothing from all his- 
tory has been adduced to show that they observe, 
or ever observed the custom which Mr. Carson here 
attributes to them. Nothing — no, nothing, but this 
idle begging of the question has been alleged and 
substantiated, or can be. But all this matters no- 
thing to Mr. Carson ! High, low, rich, poor ; at 
home and abroad ; winter or summer ; all are conve- 
niently furnished with baths, or Avith something 
else, where they may conveniently immerse them- 
selves before eating, as often as they have been at 
the market I It matters nothing that these things 
were never heard of; ''baptize means immerse," and 
thorefore it must be so. It matters not, that '' ac- 
cording to the manner of the purifying of the Jews," 
there were set, not ''baths, ^^ but " water-pots ;^^ and 
that those used at the marriage supper in Cana, 
when they would seem to need ''much water" if 
ever, contained about "two or three firkins a-piece" 
(somewhat over half a barrel, according to the 
largest computation, large enough, it would seem, to 
purify a whole company of guests, but of question- 
able capacity for a single immersion. No ; no 
matter for difficulties. " No," says Carson, " even 
an inexplicable difficulty would not affect the cer- 
tainty of my conclusions." But enough; I think 
you will conclude with me, that here is sufficient 
proof, that Mark, speaking as he was moved by the 



SPRINKLING AND POURING. 67 

Holy Ghost, teaches us that the word '' baptism" 
was used to denote (among other things) a ritual 
washing of the hands. Of course, the immersion of 
the whole body is in no way essential to a baptism. 

The mutual contradictions of our Baptist brethren, 
in the evasions which they attempt on this passage 
in Mark vii. 3, 4, only show the absolute certainty 
that baptism here means no immersion. While 
Carson says, p. 30t, '^ Either the persons referred 
to were immersed, or the inspired writer testifies a 
falsehood," Mr. Woolsey says, p. 158, '' There is not 
sufficient ground for believing that the Jews immersed 
their whole body when returning from the market." 
With him agrees Professor Ripley, who says, ''In 
the absence of clear satisfying proof, it is not becom- 
ing to make positive assertions." Baptist writers 
generally maintain that, on the occasion referred to, 
they only immersed their hands. But the sacred 
record says, ''Except they (paaTfcacovtai,) baptize them- 
selves .'" it mentions no part of the body, but refers 
the baptism to the person, as absolutely as in any 
case whatever. To insert the word hands here is to 
alter the diction, and pervert the meaning of the 
Holy Ghost. And so Carson argues; for, p. 68, he 
says, "When no part is mentioned or excepted, the 
whole body is always meant." 

Baptist writers generally maintain that, on the 
special occasion of coming from the market (oyopaj), 
they perform an immersion ; (some say, an immer- 
sion of themselves ; others, an immersion of their 



58 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

hands ; and others, an immersion of their victuals ; 
while on other occasions they simply wash their 
hands. The very connection of the passage refutes 
this distinction. Where had Jesus and his disciples 
been, when the Jews complained that his disciples 
eat with unwashen hands? Turn to the verse pre- 
ceding this seventh chapter, and you w411 see. They 
had been in the '^villages," ''city,'^ ''country," and 
'' streets.^^ But the word "streefs^^ is in the original 
ayopat^ (agovais), precisely the word rendered in vii. 
4, market. Jesus and his disciples then had come 
from the markets ; and the Pharisees wondered that 
they eat bread with defiled (that is to say with un- 
washen) hands. Then follows the explanation : and 
it is making no tautology to understand the last 
clause as a specific example (applicable to the case 
in hand), of the general custom mentioned in the 
first; 'Tor the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except 
they wash their hands oft, eat not,'' (here is the 
general custom, they wash their hands "oft;" then 
follows the particular instance, applicable to the case 
in hand); " And when they come from the market, 
except they wash (baptize themselves), they eat 
not." They had just come from the market-places 
(ayopat?): and the wonder was that they did not bap- 
tize themselves : that is, that they eat bread with 
unwashen hands. Such is the explanation which 
the Scripture gives of the sense in which the Scrip- 
ture uses the word " baptize." 

This view is still further corroborated by the pas- 



SPRINKXING AND POURING. 59 

sage in Luke xi. 38 : Jesus had been working mira- 
cles, and engaged in giving continued instruetions. 
Nothing was said to show that it was in a market ; 
though, attracted by his instructions, a crowd had 
gathered round him. -'And as he spake, a certain 
Pharisee besought him to dine with him ; and he 
went in and sat down to meat. And when the 
Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not 
washed before dinner" (in the original siSarttlaey^, that 
he had not been baptized). Did the Pharisee won- 
der that Jesus had not immersed his whole body, 
before eating an ordinary meal? Did the Pharisee 
immerse himself? Did he offer to lead Jesus to a 
bath ? Was there any retiring and unrobing for an 
immersion ? Or must we not suppose, rather, that 
the Pharisee washed his own hands on the spot, 
from the use of some ''water-pot," ''after the manner 
of the purifying of the Jews;" and wondered that 
Jesus (as had been complained of his disciples) eat 
with "unwashen hands?"* 

Here the word of God says that the Pharisee 



^ Nor is the common evasion of our Baptist brethren, con- 
cerning dipping the hands, possible here. The word ebap- 
tistlie is in the passive voice, and does not admit the word 
hands to be understood as its object. Nor are we allowed to 
supply it by synecdoche ; for where an author omits so to 
limit his meaning to a part, we have no authority to alter 
his meaning by supplying it. The word " hands" is not in 
this passage, or near it. The sacred writer refers absolutely 
to the baptism of the person. 



60 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

wondered because Jesus once sat down to meat 
without first having been baptized. Was the custom 
of immersing the whole body so universal before 
eating dinner, as to make it a matter of wonder that 
Jesus should once omit it ? There was no such 
custom. •' The manner of the purifying of the 
Jews," on such occasions, was by pouinng water on 
the hands; and the persons were then said to be 
baptized. .The word hands is not in this passage, 
but the wonder was that he (Jesus) had not first 
been baptized (on dvx np^rov EdaTtttaOr;). The person then 
w^as baptized by pouring ivater on the hands. Such 
is the testimony of the word of God. as to the mean- 
ing of the word common in that country at that day. 
One thing further is to be observed here. The 
word washed (ebaptisthe) . in Luke xi. 38, is, letter 
for letter, in all respects precisely the same as that 
used in Mark i. 9, ''Jesus" (ebaptisthe) '*was bap- 
tized of John in Jordan." In Luke xi. 38, the Holy 
Ghost affirms the baptism of the person as fully, as 
absolutely, as unequivocally, as he does when he 
says Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan. Yet 
the baptism in Luke xi. 36. was no immersion, but a 
simple ablution of the hands, by pouring, or allow- 
ino: water to run over them. Xav, the Holy Ghost 
uses in this case the selfsame word, without the 
alteration of a single letter, without a syllable of 
exjDlanation, with no circumstaDce to modify or di- 
minish the full meaning of the word baptize. How 
then can it be pretended fi^om the meaning of the 



SPRINKLING AND POURING. 61 

word alone, that Jesus was immersed of John in 
Jordan ? Why could not the baptism in this case 
be performed by pouring water on him, as well as 
in the other ? With this explicit and unequirocal 
testimony of the Holy Ghost, as to the common 
meaning of ''baptize" in the sacred writings, how 
can our Baptist brethren pretend, that when our 
Saviour commands us to be baptized, he commands 
us to be immersed, without being guilty of altering 
the command of Christ, and adding to the word 
of God ? 

To my mind, here is, so far, demonstration — proof 
which puts it be^^ond my power to doubt — that 
sprinkling and pouring are scriptural modes of 
BAPTISM. Whether the mode of immersion has a 
scriptural recognition is a matter that is yet to ap- 
pear. It is certain, without going farther, that im- 
mersion CANNOT BE ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM. 

Let US come now to the use of the word '' bap- 
tize" with reference to the work of the Holy Spirit. 
Jesus said. Acts i. 3, ''John truly baptized with 
water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy 
Ghost, not many days hence." I will not stop to 
show how grossly this would sound to alter it, ac- 
cording to the proposal of our Baptist brethren, so 
as to read, "But ye shall be immersed with (or in) 
the Holy Ghost." 

This baptism was accomplished on the day of 
Pentecost. Peter said of it, " This is that which 
was spoken by the prophet Joel : And it shall come 
6 



62 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

to pass in the last days — I will pour out my spirit 
upon all flesh." '' He (Jesus) hath shed forth this." 
So, Acts xi. 15, 16, ''And as I began to speak, the 
Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 
Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that 
he said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye 
shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." The mode 
of the baptism here spoken of, is under the figure of 
pouring and shedding forth. The gift of the Spirit 
is never spoken of under the figure of immersion, 
but as a pouring, shedding forth, sprinkling, coming 
down like rain. Thus, Isaiah xliv. 3, " I will pour 
out my Spirit upon thy seed." Ezek. xxxvi. 25, 26, 
'' Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye 
shall be clean: a new heart also will I give you." 
Compare Tit. iii. 5, 6, " By the washing of regene- 
ration, the renewing of the Holy Ghost, which is 
shed onus abundantly;" Ps. xlii. 6, "He shall come 
down upon the mown grass as showers that water 
the earth ;" Isaiah Hi. 15, ''So shall he sprinkle 
many nations." 

It has been argued that the baptizing was still by 
immersion, as the Spirit was shed down "abundant- 
ly," and "filled the room." The Scripture says, 
"the sound" filled the room. It is not so gross as 
to speak of the Holy Spirit filling a room like a ma- 
terial substance, and thus immersing people. Be- 
sides, though you might cover people by pouring 
water on them, provided they were enclosed in a 
room or vessel, you could not be said to "dip" or 



SPRINKLING AND POURING. 63 

"plunge'^ them in so doing; but immersion (and 
it is contended that the baptism of the Holy 
Ghost shall be called the ''immersion'^ of the 
Holy Ghost), has the act of dipping entering neces- 
sarily into its idea, as well as the act of cover- 
ing. Moreover, all converted persons are baptized 
with the Holy Ghost. Paul says, 1 Cor. xii. 13, 
'^For by one spirit are we all baptized into one 
body, whether we be Jew or Gentile, bond or 
free.'' But who will pretend that all converted 
persons are ''immersed" into the Holy Ghost, ac- 
cording to the manner in which (it is argued) the 
apostles were immersed on the day of Pentecost, by 
pouring the Spirit upon them till it filled the room, 
and so immersed them ? 

Here I rest under this topic. The mode of baptism 
in the baptism of the Holy Ghost, as that mode is 
indicated by the uniform figure, is pouring, shedding 
forth, sprinkling, coming down like rain, or like 
shoivers, falling upon. I cannot but wonder that 
those who insist so much upon the words, ''buried 
with him in baptism," are not able to see in these 
also an equal authority for proper modes of bap- 
tism ; even granting (what I do not grant) that their 
favorite phrase has some reference to a mode of 
baptism. 

Having traced the meaning of the word "baptize" 
so far in the Scriptures, turn to the early Christian 
FATHERS, whose vicws of what is essential to bap- 
tism were moulded on the meaning of the term com- 



64 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

mon among Christians and Jews. The following 
examples, with several others, are adduced by Dr. 
Pond.* 

'^Tertullian speaks of baptism being adminis- 
tered by sprinkling. ' Who will accommodate you, 
a man so little to be trusted (asperginem unam 
aqu8e) with one sprinkling of water V 

" Origen represents the wood on the altar, over 
which water was poured at the command of Elijah 
(1 Kings xviii. 33), as having been baptized. 

"Lactanius says that Christ received baptism, 
' that he might save the Gentiles by baptism,' that 
is (purifici roris perfusione) by the distilling of the 
purifying dew. 

" Cyprian, Jerome, and some others of the Fa- 
thers, understood the prediction, ' I will sprinkle 
clean water upon you,' Ezek. xxxvi. 25, as having 
reference to water baptism. 

''Clemens Alexandrinus, speaking of a back- 
slider, whom John was the means of reclaiming, 
says, 'He was baptized a second time with tears.^ 

"Athanasius reckons up eight several 'bap- 
tisms,' and the sixth in his enumeration is that " of 
tears.^ 

Gregory Nazianzen says, 'I know of a fourth 
baptism, that by martyrdom and blood; and I know 
of a fifth, that of tears.^ The baptism of tears and 



* See pp. 33, 34, of his excellent work on Baptism. 



SPRINKLING AND POURING. 65 

blood was a favorite phraseology with the early- 
Christians." 

Now in all these baptisms, of the '* wood and the 
altar," of '' tears," and '^ blood," the idea of '' dipping," 
^^ plunging," ''burying," or ''immersing," is excluded. 
" Wet," " washed," " sprinkled," " poured upon," those 
spoken of here as baptized might be ; but whether 
men may be dipped or immersed in their own tears 
or blood, admits of a question. If it be said that 
these representations are figurative, certainly there 
is no immersion about them, even in figure. 

The conclusion is, that the early fathers, as well 
as the Apostles, understood the word "baptize" in 
quite another sense than that of immerse. Their 
idea of baptism was that of a, purifying (or conse- 
crating) by spriJikling or pouring, and these are the 
modes under which is constantly represented the 
purifying (the baptism) of the Holy Ghost. 

I have now done with the argument under the 
first head, and we are ready for the question, What 
ivould the immediate disciples of our Lord under- 
stand fy^om the simple face of the command " Bap- 
tize ?" Would they consider immersion as essen- 
tial ? I think the conclusion is inevitable ; it is 
IMPOSSIBLE. Sprinkling and pouring they would in- 
evitably consider lawful and proper modes ; and so 
far, it has not appeared that they have any notion 
of immersing at all \ or any authority for it, if direct 
authority be sought for a specific mode. 



66 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

I have done with the argument from the meaning 
of the word, and proceed to the second inquiry. 

II. Is THERE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT THE 

DISCIPLES OF Christ always administered bap- 
tism BY IMMERSION? 

I say ahvays ; for if they did not always do so, 
immersion cannot be essential, even though it could 
be proved (which it cannot be) that immersion was 
the common mode. 

John was baptizing in Enon, ^'because there was 
much water there.^'' It is contended that tlie ^'much 
water'' could be needed only for immersion, and that 
therefore John baptized by immersion. 

It is not a little remarkable that they who print 
this in capitals to prove that John baptized by im- 
mersion, presently find water enough in Jerusalem 
to baptize three thousand in a small part of one day. 
They are fond of asking, '' Why did he go to the 
RIVER?'' They dwell much upon '' Following the 
Saviour down the banks of Jordan ;" and upon 
" Going to the river." But though Jordan was 
at hand, we read no more about the disciples going 
*^ to the river." We hear nothing said by the Apos- 
tles about following the Saviour down the banks of 
Jordan. They baptize w^herever they may happen 
to be ; and are never at a loss, or compelled to re- 
move to another place for the purpose of finding 
'^much water." It does not appear that they ever 
think it needs much water for baptism. It seems 



SPRINKLING AND POURING. 6T 

strange, therefore, that John went to Enon to find 
much water for the mere purpose of baptizing. 

John preached ''in the wilderness'^ (Matt, iii.) it 
is said, Mark i. 4, '' John did baptize in the wilder- 
ness." It is said that '' Jerusalem and all Judea, 
and all the region round about, went out to John." 
Such multitudes would need '' much water" for other 
purposes than immersion ; and John must needs re- 
sort to a place where much water might be found to 
furnish those multitudes in the wilderness with 
drink, unless indeed he could work a miracle, and 
we read that "John did no miracle." This may 
seem, at first view, a little matter to us, in this land 
of wells, and brooks, and springs ; but all who are 
familiar with travels in the East, know how impor- 
tant a considerable caravan finds it to get near a 
good watering place for an encampment, even for a 
single night. 

Now what was this ''Wilderness of Judea?" 
Take the map and look eastward from Jerusalem 
and Judea to Jordan, to the region lying between 
these, and from the Dead Sea up to what is supposed 
to be Enon. You have embraced the location of the 
wilderness of Judea. And what is this wilderness? 
An American lady (Mrs. Haight), who travelled up 
this region from Jericho a short time since, thus de- 
scribes her journey in Yol. ii. p. 131, of her travels. 
" Our course lay due north, up the valley of Jordan. 
We replenished our water-bottles (bags), as we were 
warned that we should find no more until afternoon. 



68 LAAV OF BAPTISM. 

At this spot we left all signs of cultivation ; the 
plain was afterward one entire desert, during the 
whole day's ride of twenty-five miles. The soil was 
a compact gravel, or as geologists call it, a ' hard 
pan,' partially covered with a short dry grass, the 
result of the winter rains, which withers up the mo- 
ment their influence is past. Not a single object or 
incident occurred during this most tedious and pain- 
ful day of all my life. This was the first time since 
we left Beyroot that we had suffered any length of 
time for want of water. By nine o'clock the intense 
heat of the sun made the water in the leather bottles 
so warm that we could not drink it. Extreme thirst 
obliged us merely to moisten our parched tongues." 

Josephus bears the same testimony of this wilder- 
ness. ''The whole plain," says he, ''is destitute of 
water, except the Jordan." In another place he 
says, that " The Jordan, dividing the lake of Gen- 
nesareth in the midst, passes through an extensive 
desert into the Dead Sea." 

In this wilderness John was preaching and bap- 
tizing. There seems here reason enough why, being 
in the wilderness, he should "^o to the river, ^^ even 
if it were not to immerse ; and reason enough why 
he should resort to Enon for much water, even for 
other purposes than immersion. The immense mul- 
titudes would need water for drink ; or if they had 
prudently brought a supply in their leathern bags, 
John might still have preferred the waters of the 
river for the purpose of purifying ; and the traveller, 



SPRINKLING AND POURING. 69 

Sandys,* says, ^^that at Enon are little springs gush- 
ing out, whose waters are soon absorbed by the 
sands.'' Could not these springs, with their streams, 
have been the {TtoVKo. vSata), ''many waters," for the 
sake of which John resorted to Enon ; for it cannot 
be supposed but that there was as "vmch loater^ 
anywhere along the stream of Jordan as opposite to 
Enon ; and to find much water in Jordan could be 
no reason for going to Enon more than for ''going 
to the river," at any other spot? We read no more 
of ^' going to the river," or of going to any spot to 
find much water for the purpose of baptizing. I 
leave it, therefore, for you to judge, w^hether the ar- 
gument for immersion from going " to the river," and 
from going to Enon, because there was "much 
water there," does not dissipate and scatter away 
like the mists before the sun and wind. 

" But Jesus came up straightway out of the water. ^^ 
The argument drawn from this is distinct from 
that of going to the river, and from the "much 
water" at Enon. It therefore merits a distinct ex- 
amination. 

Did Jesus emerge from beneath the surface of the 
water; or did he simply go up out of the water, or 
from the water? The original language here is 
such as can have no reference to emerging from 
under water, the Greek is a^/a^Gatwov ano iov vha^to^y — 
'^ going up out of (or fronn) the ivater.^^ The verb 

"^ Hamilton on Baptism, p. 92. 



TO LAW OF BAPTISM. 

and the preposition both forbid the idea of emerging 
from under water. To express this both should 
have been changed, and the Greek is supplied with 
words to express the idea exactly. And Carson, 
who is a profound Greek scholar, and never admits 
against his scheme anything that he is not compelled 
to admit, says (p. 200), "1 admit the proper transla- 
tion of aTio (apo), is from, not out of. I perfectly agree 
with Mr. Ewing that ano (the word here translated 
' out of ') would have its meaning fully verified, if 
they had only gone down to the edge of the loater.^^ 
But, says he, '' My argument is this. If baptism 
had not been by immersion, there can be no ade- 
quate cause alleged for going to the river. Can 
sober judgment, can candor suppose, that if a hand- 
ful of water would have sufficed for baptism, they 
would have gone to the river?'' 

I trust I have your judgment decisively given on 
the subject of '' going to the river ;" and the other 
part, that of '' coming out of the water," Mr. Carson 
has formally given up. So in neither case is there 
the shadow of a proof, or of a presumption, that the 
baptism was performed by immersion. Going into 
the ioate7- (even if we admit that the Saviour went 
further than "the edge of the water"), and coming 
up out of the water, does not necessarily imply that 
one has been under water, or that he has been knee- 
deep. How much less can a simple going up from 
the water, when it is not certain that one has been 
mto the water at all, necessarily imply that he had 



SPRINKLING AND POURING. tl 

been under water ? How idle to rely upon this to 
prove it ? 

Take now the baptism of the eunuch, Acts viii. 
38, 39. ''And thej went down both into the water, 
both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized them. 
And when they were come up out of the water, the 
Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip." 

On this, Mr. Carson says (p. 203), '' The man who 
can read it, and not see immersion in it, must have 
in his mind something unfavorable to the investiga- 
tion of truth. As long as I fear God, I cannot, for 
all the kingdoms of the world, resist the evidence of 
this single document, l^ay, had I no conscience, I 
could not, as a scholar, attempt to expel immersion 
from this account. All the ingenuity of all the 
critics in Europe cannot expel immersion from this 
account. Amidst the most violent perversion that 
it can sustain on the rack, it will still cry out ^m- 
mersion, immersion." The fact, that in a work in 
which he goes over the whole field of debate, and 
discusses the meaning of ''baptize" from old Homer 
to the end of Greek ; the fact that in such a work, 
consisting of 2H pages, on the mode of baptism, he 
spends 24 pages upon this single passage of Philip 
and the eunuch, shows of how much importance he 
makes it ; and, indeed, we are ready to suspect, from 
his spending so much labor on so very plain a case, 
that he found it not very easy to make a clear im- 
mersion out of it after all. 

I profess I see no immersion in the account. 



t2 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

Whence is the immersion inferred ? From the fact 
that the eunuch went into the water, and came up 
out of the water ? But they went down ''hotlV^ into 
the water, and " they^'' (both) came up out of the 
water. If going into the water, and coming up out 
of the water, prove an immersion, it proves that 
Philip was immersed as well as the eunuch : and 
what thus proves too much (proves what is not 
true) proves nothing. 

Is it proved from the fact that the eunuch was 
baptized f What that baptizing was, is the question. 
I have proved that people and things were often 
baptized when they were not immersed, but only 
sprinkled or poured upon. The baptism proves no 
immersion. 

Precisely the same words might have been used 
in the narrative, had they come to a stream not 
ankle-deep, and gone down both into"^ the vrater; and 
if Philip, having no convenient basin or dish, had 



* It is not certain that they went further than to the 
water. To make the Greek eig necessarily mean into, would 
make Jesus come into Jerusalem, when he was as far off as 
" Bethphage and the Mount of Olives," IMatt. xxi. 1. It 
would made our Lord command Peter go into the sea, when 
he was only to go to the sea, Matt. xvii. 27, and Peter must 
needs have thrown himself into the sea after the fish, instead 
of casting his hook in. These are but specimens of numer- 
ous similar absurdities. 

In John XX. 4, 5, ''One came {eir} to fAPr]ii6iov) to the sepul- 
chre," " yet went he not m" (oi nsvroi cianXde^). 



SPRINKLING AND POURING. T3 

dipped his hand in the water, and poured or sprin- 
kled it upon the eunuch ; and if then they had both 
come up out of the water. Who will prove to me 
that this stream was a foot deep ? Who will prove 
it a stream at all ? Who will prove the quantity of 
water there was sufficient to render an immersion 
possible ? If it was, who will prove that the eunuch 
was immersed ? I see no proof of immersion here. 
The only show of proof is by begging the question, 
and taking for granted the very thing to be proved. 

On the other hand there is some reason (aside 
from the fact that baptism was commonly performed 
by sprinkling or pouring), to suppose that the 
eunuch was baptized by sprinkling. He was reading 
the passage in Isaiah liii. 1, which he did not under- 
stand. Philip began '' at the beginning'^ — viz., at 
the beginning of that prophecy concerning Christ 
(for the book was not divided into chapters and 
verses), and that was at chap. lii. 13 — ''Behold my 
servant." Beginning here, Philip expounded the 
Scripture. He must needs have read and expounded 
those remarkable words in ver. 15, "So shall he 
SPRINKLE many nations.'''' How sprinkle ? By puri- 
fying : an inward purifying by his Spirit ; and a 
purifying by his blood ; by the '' spiHnkling of the 
blood of Christ;" and by the Bajjtism of the Holy 
Ghost. The outward sign of these inward and 
spiritual things is the outward purification by sprink- 
ling. Now the explanation of this passage would 
most naturally lead to the conversation about bap- 
7 



T4 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

tism : the outward baptism by water. Baptism is 
the only ritual application of water under the Chris- 
tian dispensation ; and the only figure chosen to 
represent the spiritual cleansing by Christ is sprink- 
ling. This is the only use of water foretold by the 
prophets, even in figure. Is it improbable that the 
exposition of this passage led to the conversation 
about baptism ? And when they casually came to 
water, the eunuch said, ''See, here is water; what 
doth hinder me to be baptized ?" In the absence of 
all proof to the contrary, this incident goes to render 
it probable that the eunuch was baptized by sprink- 
ling. The other instances, yet to be adduced from 
the sacred record, in which the baptism must appa- 
rently have been performed in some other mode 
than that of immersion, concur to strengthen this 
probability. 

Two other expressions are much relied on as 
proof of the mode of baptism : those in Rom. vi. 3, 
4, and Col. ii. 12. In these believers are said to be 
baptized into the ''death" of Jesus Christ; and 
''buried ivith him by bajotism into death." The lan- 
guage is figurative. There is just as much reason 
to argue from them that believers are literally put to 
death in baptism, as that they are literally buried under 
water in baptism ; nay, the dying is the thing more 
insisted on, and, indeed, the principal idea : the one 
on which the whole force of the passage turns 
They are buried with him by baptism "into death." 
They are "planted together, in the likeness" (not of 



SPRINKLING AND POURING. ^5 

his grave or burial), but in the likeness of his death. 
They are ''crucified with him." The j are ^'bap- 
tized" — not into his grave or burial, but ''into his 
death,^^ If we are to infer the mode of baptism 
from these figures, the evidence is strongest for 
drawing a resemblance for the mode of baptism 
from hanging on the cross ; for that was the mode 
of his dying; and the passage says we are "cruci- 
fied with him." But the reference here is not to the 
mode, though the words furnish a happy sound for 
our Baptist brethren to play upon. The argument 
is. We are dead with Christ, and we must no more 
live to sin than a dead body must live. We are 
dead ; and more — we are buried ; as we often say to 
express strongly the fact that a person has ceased 
from living, " He is dead and buried." The burying 
is the conclusive token of his being dead: so the 
baptism is a token, not of the burying, but of the 
death; we are buried "into death ;" we are baptized 
into his death." It is not the mode of the baptism 
that is referred to, but the import of the baptism : — 
" Our old man is crucified with him, that the body 
of sin might be destroyed;" "that henceforth we 
should not serve sin;" "that henceforth we should 
be dead to sin." I confess I see no manner of 
force in the argument drawn fi*om the passage in 
favor of immersion. The argument being from the 
import of baptism rather than from its mode, both 
the language and the argument are equally appro- 
priate, whatever the mode. 



76 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

In 1 Cor. X. 2, the apostle says, ^'The Israelites 
were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the 
sea.'' Apparently, from the quantity of water in the 
vicinity, this passage, as well as that in 1 Peter iii. 
21, concerning the " eight souls saved by water ; the 
like figure whereunto even baptism doth now save 
us," — has been claimed as proving immersion. 
Surely there was water enough in the Red Sea to 
immerse the Israelites ; and water enough in the 
Deluge to immerse the world, and literally to ^' bury 
it into death." But it seems to be forgotten that the 
''eight souls saved by water" were in the ark, and 
neither drowned nor immersed at all :* and that the 
Israelites who were baptized unto Moses walked on 
dry land. They suffered no immersion, unless one 
may be immersed on dry land. If they were wet 
at all, it was by the spray of the sea, and by the 
rain that dropped from the clouds: as in Ps. Ixxvii., 



•^ To tMs Mr. Carson replies, p. 413, " Y/hat could be a 
more expressive burial in water than to be in the ark when 
it was floating ? As well might it be said that a person is 
not buried in the earth, when lying in his coffin, covered 
with earth. May not persons in a ship be said figuratively 
to be buried in the sea ? They who were in the ark were 
deeply immersed. * Moses,' Mr. H. tells us, 'walked on dry 
ground.' Yes, and he got a dry dip. And could not a per- 
son, literally covered with oil cloth, get a dry immersion in 
the water?" 

I confess I have not "perspicacity" enough to see the 
force of such reasoning. 



SPRINKLING AND POURING. tt 

• 

'* Thou leddest thy people like a flock by the hand 
of Moses and Aaron :" '' The waters saw thee, 
God : the waters saw thee ; they were afraid : the 
depths also were troubled: the clouds poured out 
water." If there is any mode of baptism here, it is 
a sprinkling, or such a pouring out of water as falls 
in drops. A baptism there was; an immersion 
there was not. 

The instances so far considered are the ones relied 
on to prove that immersion was the mode of bap- 
tism, and the only one practiced by the immediate 
disciples of Christ. I think I have shown that they 
prove no such thing : that they afford scarcely the 
faintest shadow of it ; but that, on the contrary, the 
probability is all in favor of a baptism by pouring or 
sprinkling. 

In the remaining instances the advocates of im- 
mersion are compelled to take the laboring oar, and 
render that certain or probable, which on the face of 
it seems impossible. 

On the day of Pentecost ('' the feast of weeks, of 
the first fruits of wheat harvest," Exod. xxxiv. 22), 
the season when the brook Kedron was dry, and 
when, "' save the pool of Siloam, no living fountain 
gladdened the city," three thousand were baptized 
in a small part of one day. Now what do those 
who make John take Jerusalem and Judea out to 
Enon to immerse them because there is much water 
there? All at once, and very conveniently, there 
are discovered a number of reservoirs and baths. 



78 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

But it is forgotten that these can only belong to the 
rich ; and not many rich or mighty were in the habit 
of befriending the followers of Christ ; and the great 
mass of the converts appear to have been strangers at 
Jerusalem. JSTot the least intimation is found that 
such bathing places were resorted to. And a simple 
mathematical calculation will show that the eleven 
apostles could hardly have immersed three thousand 
persons in so short a time. All these circumstances 
show a high degree of probability that there was 
no immersion here. 

The jailor (Acts xvi. 19-30) was baptized in the 
night, and it should seem in prison. But it is urged 
there might be a bath there ; and long arguments 
are held to show that the prison might have been 
furnished with a bath, in which the jailor might have 
been immersed. Surely, surely, that is a happy fa- 
cility of discovery, which after making it necessary 
for all Judea to go out to Jordan to find water 
enough to be baptized, and to go to a particular point 
on Jordan, — to Enon, because there is much water 
there, — can presently find water enough anywhere 
and everywhere. If a bath should perchance be 
wanted, there is no difficulty : a stroke of the pen 
places it there ; and a certain immersion is performed 
w^ithout a scrap of evidence in the history to show 
that an immersion was possible ! 

But this ground is now very generally given up, 
and a way for immersion is found out even without 
a bath in the prison. It is now maintained that the}'' 



SPRINKLING AND POURING. 79 

went forth ; because he was brought out of prison, 
and then brought into the house ; and it is demand- 
ed, as an unanswerable argument, why he was taken 
abroad in the night, except for immersion ; or why 
taken abroad at all, if he might be baptized by 
sprinkling within. 

Now this is to give up the baptism in a bath within 
the prison ; for I take it as a point not to be debated, 
that he was not baptized both in the prison and out 
of it, in one and the same baptism. But in letting 
this stronghold go, as they in justice 'should, have 
they found another, where they may rest secure ? I 
think not. The jailor thrust them into the inner 
prison : then he brought them out of that into the 
more common part of the prison ; not out of doors 
abroad ; for we see that he was ready to kill himself 
when he supposed the prisoners had escaped, even 
by means of an earthquake. In this prison proper 
the baptism was performed : then the jailor brought 
them into his house; i. e., into his dwelling apart- 
ments, doubtless attached to the prison. There was 
no going abroad at all. Paul would not go out upon 
leave, till the magistrates came and fetched him out. 
So, the bath is given up, and the substitute fails : 
and according to the proper rules of argument we 
should be entitled to have it granted, on their own 
ground, that here was no immersion. Every expe- 
dient has failed, and we have, in all reason, a simple 
common baptism by sprinkling or pouring. 

Paul's baptism is recorded in Acts ix. H, 18. He 



80 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

was in his chamber, blind, and w^eak with fasting 
three days. ^' He arose (or stood up) and was bap- 
tized ; and when he had received meat he was 
strengthened." What pretence for a bath in this 
inner chamber? What is there to show that he 
went abroad in his weak state, before he had re- 
ceived meat and was strengthened? I am unable 
even to conjecture what. It was, I think, beyond 
proper question, a baptism by sprinkling or pouring. 

The baptism of Cornelius is recorded. Acts x. 44. 
Those who heard Peter were first baptized with the 
Holy Ghost. ''And as I began to speak, the Holy 
Ghost /eZZ on them, as on us at the beginning. Then 
remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he 
said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall 
be baptized with the Holy Ghost," Acts xi. 15. He 
reasoned at the time thus: These have received 
the Holy Ghost; can any man forbid water? They 
have received the greater baptism, can any man forbid 
the less : they have the reality, can any man forbid the 
sign? His idea seems to be, not that they might be 
carried and applied to the water ; but that water jnight 
be brought and applied to them. The Spirit's mode of 
baptizing was a falling upon, and such, it seems clear- 
ly, was the probable application of the water here. 

Here I rest under the second inquiry. Not only 
is there no evidence that the apostles always bap- 
tized by immersion, but clear evidence to the con- 
trary : and I add, no certain evidence that they im- 
mersed at all. The probability, even so far as con- 



SPRINKLING AND POURING. 81 

cerns this, is on the other side. I do profess myself 
unable, and my belief that all other men are unable, 
to make out a clear case of baptism by immersion in 
the New Testament. And yet if twenty might be 
made out, it would not invalidate the argument, as 
I shall show under the third inquiry. 

Previously to entering upon this, however, it 
seems desirable to say a word, in passing, on the 
argument from history. This is not indeed essen- 
tial. I care not who gets the argument from his- 
tory, provided I get the argument clear and decisive 
from the word of God. 

That immersion was early and extensively prac- 
ticed is certain. That it was not considered essen- 
tial is also certain.* The practice was never inva- 
riable. The sick and feeble were baptized by affu- 

* Justin is relied on to prove that immersion only was 
practiced in his day. But he uses such language as renders 
it certain that he by no means considered immersion essen- 
tial ; and such as renders it doubtful whether he meant im- 
mersion at all. Thus, when he is writing to the Emperor, 
he invariably describes the baptism, and does not use the 
word baptize at all. He describes the baptism by the words 
Xovw (louo) ** to wash," and \ovTpov, ''washing." But these 
words referred to no particular mode of applying water, 
least of all to an indispensable immersion ; and if he thought 
immersion essential, he wilfully misled the Emperor, who 
would of necessity understand that they were washed in 
any mode, and not necessarily immersed; but if in any spe- 
cific mode — by an application of water to the subject, not 
of the subject to the water. — Chopin, p. 65. 



82 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

sion or sprinkling ; and baptism in such modes was 
distinctly recognized as valid as in other cases. No- 
vatian was baptized by affusion as he lay upon his 
bed in sickness. The Emperor Constantino was 
baptized by Eusebius, of Nicomedia, lying on his 
bed, clothed in white. Sixty or seventy years after 
the Apostles, a Jew, while travelling with Chris- 
tians, fell sick, and desired baptism. Not having 
water, they sprinkled him thrice with sand. '^ He 
recovered. His case was reported to the bishop, 
who decided that the man was baptized, if only he 
had water poured on him again.''* Laurentius is 
mentioned as baptizing two persons, Romanus and 
Lucilius, by affusion. '' A little while before he suf- 
fered, he baptized one of his executioners with a 
pitcher of ivate7\^^f Many such cases are all along 
incidentally recorded. Upon the best search that I 
can make, I am compelled to abide by the conclusion 
of Dr. Pond, who says (p. 43), '' I propose it as an 
indubitable fact that immersion was never considered 
essential to baptism, till the rise of the Anabaptists 
in Germany, in the sixteenth century." 

History shows that Christians early laid an im- 
proper stress upon baptism, attributing to it an effi- 
cacy which by no means belongs to it. To the 
simple rite of baptism by sprinkling or affusion prac- 
ticed by the Apostles, they soon added a more tho- 

* Pond, p. 45. t I^icl, p. 48. 



SPRINKLING AND POURING. 83 

rough washing with a greater quantity of water.* 
And this is scarce to be wondered at when we re- 
member how Peter said, ''Lord, not my feet only, 
but my hands and my head." And yet our Saviour 
did seem to caution his disciples against this ten- 
dency to overdo and overburden religious rites, when 
he replied, '' He that is washed, needeth not, save 
to wash his feet, but is clean every whit." The ten- 
dency was never to throw off any part of the cere- 
mony, but to add more. To immersion they soon 
added a trine, or threefold immersion ; exorcisms (or 
expelling the devil from the candidate) ; putting salt 
on the tongue ; anointing the eyes, ears and mouth 
with spittle ; marking with the sign of the cross ; 
clothing in a white robe, and anointing with oil. 
They went further. Not content with being literally 
buried in the waters, they imbibed another notion 
from ''putting off the old man," and also from the 
nakedness of Christ on the cross (for the same pas- 
sage which speaks of being buried with Christ 
speaks of the old man being crucified with Christ) : 
and they baptized all naked : men, women, youths, 
children, all alike, actually naked, divested of all 
clothing ! Truly, " Baptisteries " were necessary 
at that period : and he would not be wide from the 

* Jerome speaks of a mode of baptism as common in the 
ancient churcli, wMcli was not to dip the whole body, but a 
^^ thrice dipping of the head.' ^ Augustine mentions the same. 
(Pond, p. 46.) 



84 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

mark who should see here a reason for their inven- 
tion, to remedy the indecencies of the scene ; but 
from the beginning it was not so. For authority as 
to this fact I refer to Dr. Wall's History of Infant 
Baptism, and to Dr. Miller on Baptism, p. 105. 
Wall says, " The ancient Christians, when they 
were baptized by immersion, were all baptized 
naked, whether they were men, women or children.'' 
Dr. Miller adds, " We have the same evidence (to 
wit, from history) in favor of immersing divested of 
all clothing, that we have for immersion at all," and 
that ^' so far as the history of the Church subsequent 
to the Apostolic age informs us, these must stand or 
fall together." 

The argument from history, therefore, proves no- 
thing pertinent to the determining of the question, 
or it proves altogether too much. It cannot weigh 
against the word of God, and the suitable exposition 
of the law of baptism as instituted by Christ. 

But here justice requires that I go a little further. 
A tract entitled "A Familiar Dialogue between Peter 
and Benjamin on the subject of Gommunion,^^ is in 
common and extensive circulation, on the first page 
of which is the following statement : '^ As late as 
1643, in the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, 
sprinkling was substituted for immersion by a ma- 
jority of ONE — 25 voted for sprinkling, 24 for immer- 
sion. This small majority was obtained by the 
earnest request of Dr. Lightfoot, who had acquired 
great influence in that Assembly." 



SPRINKLING AND POURING. 85 

Now all this is told for truth. It is told most cir- 
cumstantially : ''in 1643" — ''the Assembly of Di- 
vines" — " majority of o?ie" — " 24 for immersion" — * 
*' 25 for sprinkling" — " by the earnest request of Dr. 
Lightfoot." 

Like other fictions, this fiction is founded on fact, 
but it is not the truth. 

From the journal of Lightfoot it appears, 

1. That the matter in dispute was ^'sprinkling 
being granted, whether dipping should be tole- 
rated WITH IT." The proposition, "It is lawful 
and sufficient to besprinkle the child," had been can- 
vassed and was ready to vote. But Dr. Lightfoot 
*' spoke against it as being very unfit to vote that it 
is lawful to sprinkle when every one grants it." 
Whereupon it was fallen upon, sprinkling being 
granted, whether dipping should be tolerated with 
it. And here, says Lightfoot, "we fell upon a large 
and long discourse whether dipping was essential, or 
used in the first institution, or in the Jews' custom." 

2. It was not true that 24 voted for immersion, as 
opposed to sprinkling ; but, as Dr. Lightfoot says, 
" so many were unwilling to have dipping excluded, 
that the votes came to an equality within one." It 
was not that they wished immersion to be adopted, 
or even recommended in the Directory ; but simply 
that the Directory might not prohibit immersion to 
those who should prefer it. When the proposition 
was put in such a shape as not to make dipping un- 
lawful, the Assembly, with great unanimity, declared 

8 



86 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

in their Directory that for the mode of baptizing, it 
is ''not only lawful ^ hut also sufficient, and most 
EXPEDIENT, to bc by pouring or sprinkling water on 
the face of the child, without adding any other cere- 
mony." 

3. Nothing at all was finally determined on that 
vote of 24 to 25. '^ After that vote," Lightfoot 
says, '' when we had done all, we concluded nothing 
about it, but the business was recommitted." 

On the following points, then, the statement of 
the tract in question is not true : 

1. It is not true, that sprinkling was substituted 
for immersion by the Assembly of Divines. 

2. It is not true, that 24 voted for immersion and 
25 for sprinkling, as opposing or preferring sprinkling 
to immersion. All they wanted was, not to exclude 
dipping as unlawful; and as soon as this point was 
yielded them, they '' with great unanimity" concurred 
in the vote declaring sprinkling to be ''lawful," 
"■ sufl&cient and most expedient." 

3. It is not true, that the Assembly finally deter- 
mined anything as touching this matter by a ma- 
jority of one. 

From this is vamped up the statement in the 
tract ; and the statement is made in such a connec- 
tion as to lead people to understand, that ''immer- 
sion" had been the common mode, and the Assem- 
bly substituted sprinkling for it. There was no such 
substitution, either in fact, or even so much as a substi- 
tution of the word sprinkling for the word immersion 



SPRINKLING AND POURING. SI 

in the Directory. That the statements of the tract 
are grossly untrue, may be seen by a bare reference 
to dates, which every schoolboy ought to know. 

The time w^hen the sprinkling was said to be sub- 
stituted for immersion was the year 1643. Twenty- 
three years before this, the Pilgrim Fathers landed 
at Plymouth ; and if immersion had been the com- 
mon practice in England, they Avould have brought 
it with them. But the fact was so far from this, 
that sixteen years after, Roger Williams removed 
from Massachusetts to Providence, and continued a 
Pedobaptist for three years longer. When at length 
he turned Baptist, as Mr. Hague, the present minis- 
ter of the original Roger Williams Church in Provi- 
dence, says, in his '' Historical Discourse'' — (and as 
is narrated in the ''Life of Roger Williams") — ''The 
difficulty that arose was the want of a proper ad- 
ministrator: for at that time, no ordained minister 
could he found in America, ivho had been immersed 
on a profession of faith. And yet there were many 
aged ministers in America, who had long been min- 
isters in Old England before they came across the 
waters ! A Mr. Ezekiel Hariman, a layman, first 
immersed Mr. Williams, and then Mr. Williams im- 
mersed the rest. This was the beginning of the 
Baptists in America. 

From these facts alone any one may see that it 
cannot possibly be true, that immersion had been 
the common mode of baptism in England up to 1643, 



88 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

and that sprinkling was then substituted for it, on 
the authority of the Assembly of Divines. 

I need not pursue this matter further : nor indeed 
was it essential to advert to it at all. If we should 
grant everything from ecclesiastical history which 
any desire to assume, it would bear nothing on the 
question. Christianity in the hands of men may 
become corrupt ; it did early become corrupt. The 
word of God is the pure fountain. What instruc- 
tions may be gathered there ? To the law, to the 
testimony. History shows that immersion was not 
at any time considered by the ancient church as es- 
sential to baptism ; and if the ancient church had 
thouo-ht it essential, still we have no authoritv for 
making that essential which was not deemed so by 
the apostles and the word of God. I return to the 
argument. 

III. On the supposition that the early "- dis- 
ciples ALWAYS baptized BY IMMERSION, IS THERE 
EVIDENCE THAT THEY CONSIDERED THAT MODE ES- 
SENTIAL?" 

Suppose the command had been, ^^ Let every be- 
liever go down from Jerusalem to Jericho." Sup- 
pose that the Saviour and his early disciples all 
went by one particular way, and always rode on ass 
colts. Must we always go in that road ? Must we 
always ride on ass colts ? or is it essential whether 
we ride at all ? Certainly not. We are commanded 
to go down from Jersusalem to Jericho, and this we 
must do. But to go in any particular road ; or to ride ; 



SPRINKLING AND POURING. 89 

or to walk ; is no part of the command. The thing is 
required, the mode is not a matter of command.* He 
usm^ps the prerogative of Christ, who makes any par- 
ticular road, or any particular mode of going, essential. 
So here ; we are to be baptized, and simply bap- 
tized. But I have shown that the words " baptize" 
and ''baptism'' were in common use among the Jews 
at that time to denote a ritual purification by sprin- 
kling or pouring ; possibly also they were in use to 
denote a ritual purification by immersion, though 
this lacks proof; and were it indubitably proved, 
still the only effect would be to show that there are 
three authorized modes of baptizing instead of two ; 
and the argument would be the stronger that the 
mode is not essential. In this state of the case, sup- 
pose Christ and his disciples had all been baptized 
by sprinkling. This does not bind us to be baptized 
in that mode. Had they all been baptized by im- 
mersion, it would not bind us to an immersion. Here 
are several modes of applying water, all called 
equally baptism. Our Lord commands us to be 

■^ Thus, we celebrate the Lord's Supper with bread and 
wine. But Christ and the apostles first celebrated it under 
the following circumstances, in which nobody deems it es- 
sential to follow them. 1. It was at night. 2. In an upper 
room. 3. They used unleavened bread. 4. They partook 
in a reclining posture. 5. After eating a meal. 6. With 
no female disciples present. To my mind there appears just 
as much reason for insisting on the mode of baptism, as for 
insisting on the observance of these six particulars in the 
celebration of the Lord's Supper, and no more. 
8* 



90 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

baptized : the particular mode he does not designate. 
How can we tell that he did not, for the most conse- 
quential reasons, leave it indeterminate? If we 
add the mode to the command, we add to the law 
of Christ. 

But here it maybe replied, ''Is there not one 
faith, ONE Lord, one baptism?" Indeed, it is much 
insisted by our Baptist brethren that the unity of 
baptism consists in unity of mode ; and that three 
modes, sprinkling, pouring, immersing, make three 
baptisms. 

I might here be entitled to insist, that if the unity 
of baptism consists in unity of mode, then the mode 
of immersion is most certainly excluded ; for sprin- 
kling has been proved a lawful mode ; and pouring, 
by its superior proof, comes in with a better title 
than immersion, even if sprinkling were given up. 

But the unity of baptism does not consist in the 
unity of mode, but in the unity of design^ the unity 
of signification, unity with regard to the great truths 
to which it refers ; unity into the '' one body into 
which we are all baptized by the same Spirit." 

The Bible unequivocally teaches us that the one 
baptism does not consist in the one mode. Turn to 
Acts xix. Certain disciples had been ignorantly 
baptized with John's baptism, instead of the baptism 
which Christ enjoined, and were baptized over again. 
I am aware that many of our Baptist brethren think 
it necessary to insist that there was no re -baptism : 
and it is scarce a wonder ; because if there was here 



SPRINKLING AND POURING. 91 

a re-baptism it effectually shows that John's baptism 
and Christian baptism are entirely distinct ; and 
spoils many arguments founded on the notion that 
the baptisms are the same. Thus, in the tract that 
has already been quoted, — the '' Familiar Dialogue 
between Peter and Benjamin," published by the 
" Baptist General Tract Society'' (p. 5), Peter is 
made to say in the dialogue, — '^ I have been a little 
puzzled with the account given in Acts xix. 1-6, re- 
specting the disciples whom Paul found at Ephesus. 
Do you think they were re-baptized?" Benjamin is 
made to answer, — ''By no means, and I think I can 
relieve your mind in a few words ;" and then goes 
on to argue that there was no re-baptism. I only 
wonder that a cause, which requires so plain a state- 
ment of Scripture to be denied, should be thought 
worth defending. The words of the Scripture are 
these : ''And he said unto them, u7ito what were ye 
then baptized ? And they said, unto John^s baptism. 
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the bap- 
tism of repentance, saying unto the people that they 
should believe on him which should come after him ; 
that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they 
were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And 
when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy 
Ghost came on them."* 



* Mr. Carson admits, p. 372, that in Acts xix. 1-6, some 
who had "been baptized with John's baptism were baptized 



92 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

Hard lot, indeed, to be driven to deny that here 
was a re-baptism, and yet to hold on to the scheme 
that requires such a denial ! 

But mark: here were two baptisms, while there 
need not have been more than one mode. Unity of 
mode, therefore, does not make unity of baptism; 

AND UNITY OF BAPTISM DOES NOT CONSIST IN THE 

MODE; it lies in something else. Here the mode 
was good enough ; but the design, the intent, the 
truths on the faith of which the baptism was based, 
were different. These made the two transactions in 
one mode, two baptisms. The '' one baptism,'' there- 
fore, consists in the one design, the one signification, 
the unity of faith in the same truths which are re- 
presented by baptism ; and oneness in these things 
would make one baptism, though the mere outward 
modes should vary ever so much ; and the mode is 
not essential. To make the unity of baptism con- 
sist in the mode is, as if we were to make a man's 
identity consist in his dress ; he is one man in a 
coat with broad skirts ; he is quite another man, and 
has lost all his legal and social and personal identity, 
in a coat with narrow skirts. 

And mark still further here: in the main par- 
ticulars, the essentials, of the baptism with which 
Christ was baptized, we are not to follow him ; and so 

over again. ''I know this is disputed," lie says, ''but 
for my part I never doubted it. I cannot see how this 
can be denied, without torturing the word of God." 



SPRINKLING AND POURING. 93 

another set of arguments and of strong appeals falls 
to the ground. 

He was not baptized till thirty years old, and that 
for a special reason. We are not to follow him here. 

He was not baptized "unto repentance.''^ John's 
disciples could not follow him here. 

He was not baptized to "wash away sins.'' No 
man can follow him here. 

He was not baptized in the "name of the Son 
and of the Holy Ghost J^ Hso man is to follow him 
here. 

In fine : according to the word of God, if we had 
been baptized with John's baptism ever so ceremo- 
niously, in order to Christian baptism we must needs 
be baptized over again. 

I go on with the argument. Now our Lord com- 
manded us simply to be baptized : and there being 
in common use tivo (or if we grant our Baptist bre- 
thren, what we do not desire to deny, but what they 
cannot prove, — three) modes of ritual purifying called 
baptism ; our Lord left the mode indeterminate. How 
can we tell that he did not with deliberation and for 
the most consequential reasons, leave it indeter- 
minate ? 

Suppose you make the mode essential, and insist 
that all shall be immersed, or barred out of the 
Church. How can you tell that you are not pre- 
suming to require what the Lord purposely left op- 
tional for the most cogent and essential reasons? 
And if so, how will you answer it to God for attempt- 



94 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

ing thus to judge '' another man's servant," and to 
'4ord it over Grod's heritage ?" Suppose that Christ 
forbore to enjoin the particular mode of immersion for 
this reason : to wit — that his Gospel is designed to 
fill the whole earth, and to be applicable with all its 
ordinances to all men everywhere in all conditions. 
But there are deserts, where men may travel for 
days and not find water enough for immersion. 
There are fi'ozen regions, where immersion is a large 
part of the year nearly or quite impracticable. Many 
are sick ; many are in such a state of health that 
they cannot go abroad, much less be immersed, es- 
pecially in winter, without endangering their lives. 
Must all these be kept from Christ's ordinances, be- 
cause some think that what Christ saw fit (perhaps 
for these very reasons among others) not to pre- 
scribe, should be made essential? Because these 
cannot be immersed, are they therefore to linger 
and die without ever partaking of the Lord's Sup- 
per, whatever their desire for that and for bap- 
tism, too? 

It has been well said that '^ baptism was made for 
man, not man for baptism ;" and may not Christ 
have designedly left the mode undetermined for such 
reasons as these ? Is there no presumption in 
adding the mode to his command? Or, waiving 
these considerations, and supposing that, in Judea, 
immersion might always have been readily practiced 
on account of the comparative mildness of the cli- 



SPRINKLING AND POURING. 95 

mate ; and granting, moreover, that nobody was 
ever sick there ; can we be sure that it is entirely 
in keeping with the simplicity of Christ, and with 
the lightness and simplicity of his ordinances, to — 
cut a hole in the ice, and immerse sixty men and 
women, while the weather is so cold as to keep a 
number of men employed in stirring the water with 
poles to keep it from freezing over while the immer- 
sion is going on ? — as the papers have informed us 
was done in the Delaware river the last winter. 
Since Christ has not commanded this, nor required 
baptism to be done in the mode of immersion at all, 
how can we dare to add such doings as these to his 
gentle and easy commands ? 

We cannot. We dare not. And yet for this we 
must be cut off from communion with those whom 
we love as brethren. We see no scriptural evidence 
for the peculiar mode of immersion : but we leave 
our brethren to decide for themselves according to 
their conscience. We have conscientiously intended 
to obey the command to be baptized. We think we 
have obeyed it. But our brethren judge over our 
consciences, and would thrust us from the church, 
unless we will submit our judgment and our con- 
science to theirs. They often say to us, " Since you 
regard immersion as valid baptism, you ought to 
come to us, since we cannot in conscience come to 
you.'' We reply. Brethren, can you not allow us 
liberty of conscience, too ? Can you not receive us 



96 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

without stripping us of our dearest rights ? We 
are ready to allow and give immersion to them ; but 
we demand liberty of conscience, too. We are re- 
quired to come under a yoke which we are confident 
Christ never imposed. We are required to do that 
which we consider is adding to Christ's commands ; 
thrusting out many from his ordinances ; and com- 
pelling many more to enjoy them at the risk of their 
lives. Nay, if we would yield our own consciences 
and surrender our own liberty, they would then 
compel us, in the same manner, to lord it over the 
consciences of others ; or, in default, cast us out of 
the church : and so, if the Baptist were the only 
church, all those whose earnest research and whose 
honest conscience should not lead them to see im- 
mersion, and only immersion, in all the baptisms of 
the New Testament, must be debarred from Christ's 
house on earth, and excommunicated from his table ! 
And every one who will consent to join them, is, 
perforce, compelled to join in this unhallowed pro- 
scription of the children of God and heirs of salva- 
tion ; and that under penalty of discipline and cen- 
sure, even to excommunication ! A man may not 
commune at Christ's table, even with his own father, 
or w4th the wife of his bosom, be they ever so faith- 
ful to Christ, if they are so unfortunate as not to see 
immersion in baptism, and have been baptized in 
any other mode 1 No — everything must be squared 
to their understanding, and cut according to their 



SPRINKLING AND POURING. 9t 

opinion. The wife shall be debarred from partaking 
of the emblems of the body and the blood of the 
Saviour in connection with her dying husband, who 
desires once more, before he departs, to commemo- 
rate a Saviour's love ! 

We feel not at liberty to countenance such a ruth- 
less despotism as this. Could we surrender our 
own liberty, we have yet some conscience left 
which forbids us to lend our aid in tyrannizing over 
the consciences of others. Had we personally no 
objection to immersion, we should feel bound, for 
freedom's sake, for the truth's sake, and for Christ's 
sake, to " stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ 
hath made us free." We are not willing to be made 
the instruments of destroying the liberty of others. 
As we love Christ we dare not be brought under 
such a '^ yoke of bondage to any man." As we love 
God, or regard the rights of men, we dare not join 
in this unhallowed lording it over the consciences 
of others. We remember that it is written, " Who 
art thou, that judgeth another man's servant ? To 
his own master he standeth or falleth." We leave 
it to every man's conscience to decide whether he 
has been baptized; and when he is satisfied that 
according to his own understanding and his own 
conscience he has obeyed the command to be bap- 
tized, we dare not judge him. On the customary 
tokens of piety, and on the customary profession, as 
that custom exists in churches of any other evan- 
gelical denomination, we receive him, and with open 
9 



98 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

arms, to our communion, and to that table which is 
not ours, but the Lord's.* 

But when we have seen on what ground exclusive 
immersion is required ; when — as we are required to 
prove all things — we prove it by the word of Grod, 
and in our sober judgment, its very foundations flit 
away '' like the baseless fabric of a vision ;'' how 
can we on such grounds join in unchurching and cut- 



* "There were at that time (1689), several churches of 
Calvinistic Baptists, who held to open communion, especially 
in Bedfordshire, where John Bunyan preached." (Mur- 
dock's Mosheim, Vol. iii., p. 640.) 

" Before the erection of regular Baptist congregations, 
and indeed for some time after, it was very common for 
Baptists and others to belong to the same church, and to wor- 
ship and commune together." (Ibid., p. 541.) 

The celebrated Robert Hall was most strenuously opposed 
to close communion. 

Our Baptist brethren are fond of saying that they hold to 
no more close communion than we do. Will they put it to 
the test ? Will they receive to their communion every person 
who has, on a credible profession of piety, been received to 
some evangelical church of another denomination, and who, 
"according to his own understanding, and his own con- 
science, has obeyed the command to be baptized?" 

We give the following invitation before the communion: 
" Members of other churches present, of all evangelical de- 
nominations, in regular standing in their own churches, are 
invited to partake with us." If our Baptist brethren hold 
to no more close communion than we, will they adopt this 
form ? If not, will they give up their assertion as fallacious 
and untrue ? 



SPRINKLING AND POURING. 99 

ting oif from the communion of the saints so many 
others, who, we cannot doubt, are received of God ? 
'No, we have not so learned Christ. We have gone 
to His word for our views of truth and order. On 
that we rest. Leaving it to others to answer their 
own conscience, and to enjoy their belief without 
let or molestation from us, on the ground which we 
have examined and proved we stand fast. If our 
views of faith and order should be assailed, we 
shall nevertheless remember, that we have examined 
and proved them ; and, with much prayer, and with 
solemn and full conviction, have found that they 
rest broadly and solidly upon the eternal word of 
God. 



100 LAW OF BAPTISM. 



Ill 



ADDITIONAL DISSERTATIONS UPON PAR- 
TICULAR POINTS TOUCHING THE IN- 
TERPRETATION OF THE WORD BAP- 
TIZE. 



I. THE CLASSIC GREEK AND THE GREEK OF THE 
NEW TESTAMENT. 

Says Professor RobiDSon, in his preface to his 
Lexicon of the New Testament : 

'' A Lexicon of the New Testament, at the pre- 
sent day, presupposes the fact, that the language of 
the New Testament exhibits in many points a de- 
parture from the idiom of the Attic Greek. This 
great question, which so long agitated the learned 
philologists of Europe, would seem at present to be 
put entirely at rest." The plan of his lexicon, he 
says, is, " In defining words, those significations are 
placed first which accord with Greek usage ;'^ '' Then 
follow those significations which depart from Greek 
usage, and which are to be either illustrated from 
the Greek or the Septuagint, as compared with the 
Hebrew, or depend solely on the usus loqvxndi'^^ 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 101 

(customary use of words), " of the New Testament 
writers. ^^ 

Dr. George Campbell, whom our Baptist brethren 
are fond of complimenting as one of the most fin- 
ished Greek scholars of modern times, maintains 
that many of the idioms of the N'ew Testament 
Greek would not have been more intelligible to a 
classic Greek author than Arabic or Persian. " Take," 
says he, ^'the following for examples. Ovx a^vvatrjissi 

rtapa T'9 ©fu> Ttav pt^iJia^ Luke i. 3t ] and ovx av edcoOr^ Tiaca 

(japl, Matt. xxiv. 22." (In English, " With God no- 
thing shall be impossible," and " There should no 
flesh be saved.") " These passages in the New Tes- 
tament Greek are," says Campbell, ''phrases which, 
in my apprehension, would not have been more in- 
telligible to a Greek author than Arabic or Persian 
would have been. Fr^fia for things and rtocra ovx for 
no one, or nonej aap^ fov person, etc., would to him, I 
suspect, have proved insurmountable obstacles." . . . 
'' This," says he, " is but a small specimen — not the 
hundredth part of what might be produced on this 
subject." (Prelim. Dis. I., vol. i., p. 30.) 

''It is true," says Campbell (Prelim. Dis. I. part 
2), " that as the New Testament is written in Greek, 
it must be of consequence that we be able to enter 
critically into the ordinary import of the words of 
that tongue." " But from what has been observed, 
it is evident, that though in several cases this know- 
ledge may be eminently useful, it will not suffice ; 
nay, in many cases, it will be of little or no signifi- 
9* 



102 LAW OP BAPTISM. 

cancy." '' Classical use, both in Greek and in Latin, 
is not only, in this study, sometimes unavailable, 
but may even mislead. The sacred use and the 
classical are often very different.'''' 

The Biblical Repository, for April, 1841, has an 
article on ''The Bible and its Literature,''^ by Pro- 
fessor Edward Robinson. In this article Professor 
Robinson says, '' The language of the New Testa- 
ment is the latter Greek, as spoken by foreigners of 
the Hebrew stock, and applied by them to subjects 
on which it had never been employed by native 
Greeks. After the disuse of the ancient Hebrew in 
Palestine, and the irruption of Western conquerors, 
the Jews adopted the Greek language from neces- 
sity ;— partly as a conquered people, and partly from 
intercourse of life and commerce, in colonies, in 
cities, founded like Alexandria, and others, which 
were peopled with throngs of Jews. It was, there- 
fore, the spoken language of ordinary life which they 
learned, not the classic style of books which have 
elsewhere come down to us. But they spoke it as 
foreigners, whose native tongue was the latter Ara- 
mean ; and it therefore could not fail to acquire from 
their lips a strong Semitic character and coloring. 
When to this we add, that they spoke in Greek on 
the things of the true God, and the 7'elations of man- 
kind to Jehovah and to a Saviour — subjects to which 
no native Greek had ever applied his beautiful lan- 
guage — it will be obvious that an appeal merely to 
CLASSIC Greek and its philology will not suf- 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 103 

FICE FOR THE INTERPRETER OF THE XeW TESTA- 
MENT. The Jewish' Greek must he studied almost as 
an independent dialect, etc.^^ 

The change of meaning in many words of the 
Greek language, upon adapting it to the ideas and 
observances of a revealed religion, was a matter of 
necessity : and that aside from the natural influence 
of the Hebraic idiom. Carry the Gospel to China, 
or Hindostan, or among the tribes of our American 
Indians ; it brings them a multitude of ideas which 
are peculiar to revealed religion. To express these 
ideas, the old words of their language must receive 
a new meaning, or they must coin new words ; or 
they must adopt words from the language of those 
who brought them the new religion, or from some 
other quarter.* 

If, instead of a new religion, a new language is 
carried among a people professing the true religion, 
the words of that new language receive a new mean- 
ing the moment they are applied to the religious 
ideas and observances to which the language was 
before a stranger. Carry any heathen language into 
a Gospel land, or into a land of Hebrew rites, and 
of Hebrew ideas concerning the true God and re- 
vealed religion, and it is impossible that the mean- 



* Said David Brainerd, *' There are no words in the In- 
dian language to answer to our English words, Lord, Sa- 
viour, salvation, sinner, justice, condemnation, faith, adop- 
tion, glory, with scores of like importance." 



104 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

ing of such words as are applied to these new ideas 
should not be even more changed than is the idiom 
of the language in the construction of phrases. Such 
is the fact with regard to the New Testament Greek 
as compared with the classic, or even with the com- 
mon dialect which prevailed after the conquests of 
Alexander. 

A Baptist writer has attempted to explain this 
matter by referring to the '' Irish-English'^ of an 
''Irishman, after having become acquainted with 
our language, and able to speak it with fluency ; yet 
you can detect them using phrases and words pecu- 
liar to their own vernacular tongue, and dissimilar 
to ours." This by no means meets the case, but is 
calculated entirely to mislead. The Irishman has 
religious ideas, to a great extent common with us. 
An African or an Indian might learn our language, 
and yet speak it in a manner peculiar to himself But 
what would be the effect upon their own language, 
when the Christian religion was once completely es- 
tablished among them ? New ideas fill the mind of 
the benighted pagan, and lift up his thoughts to an- 
gels — to Heaven — to God. He thinks of redemption, 
of faith, of holiness. His thoughts, his hopes, his in- 
tellect, his heart, — all are wonderfully transformed. 
'' Old things pass away: all things become new." 
Are his lips sealed ? Is he dumb ? Are African con- 
verts never to speak to each other of the kingdom 
of God? The words of their language remaining 
the same, and applied to these new and wonderful 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 105 

ideas, is their meaning the same ? Is the whole 
change expressed by referring to the brogue of an 
Irishman whose mother tongue was Irish-English, 
and whose ideas have never changed from pagan to 
Christian ? 

That such was the effect of adapting the pagan 
Greek language to the Christian religion, any one 
may see, who will sit down patiently and turn over 
the leaves of a Lexicon of the iSTew Testament, 
which adequately discriminates and marks the 
transition. 

The sole intent of all this discussion about the 
classic use and the New Testament use, is to show 
that the word baptize in the New Testament may 
have left its primary classic signification, and have 
received a generic, sacred use, equivalent to wash- 
ing or PURIFYING, withoict the least reference to the 
mode in which that ^'washing of water ^^ is per- 
formed. Whether this be the fact or not, is to be 
learned not from the Greek classics, but from the 
New Testament itself. As to this matter of fact, 
Mark and Luke and Paul are better witnesses con- 
cerning what they themselves understood by the 
word baptize, than Xenophon, Aristotle, or than 
even that Hebrew of Hebrews, the Jewish Jose- 
phus, when he is using the word in the sense of the 
Greek classics, with no reference to its use as ap- 
plied to a religious ordinance. 

Will any Baptist make an issue on this point, and 
maintain that Apostles and Evangelists are not to 



106 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

be heard in evidence ? Will any Baptist maintain 
that Evangelists and Apostles may not explain their 
own meaning in just the same way that heathen 
Greeks may explain theirs ? Will any Baptist main- 
tain, that where the testimony of the New Testa- 
ment writers differs from that of the heathen Greeks, 
the New Testament witness is not to be heard before 
any heathen, and before all the heathen classics to- 
gether? In fine, the question here is. Is the Holy 
Ghost a competent and credible witness as to the 
sense in which the Holy Ghost uses the word baptize ? 

JUDD ON MARK VH. 4. 

Mr. Judd, in his reply to Stuart, p. 25, translates 
the passage, '' And when they come from the mar- 
ket, except they jSaTitLooivtai, baptize themselves." 
In the same manner he makes the Pharisee, in Luke 
xi. 38, wonder that Jesus had not baptized before 
dinner. As Mr. Judd maintains that baptize must 
and shall mean immerse, he maintains that baptize 
not only may have its usual meaning here, but that 
''that meaning is absolutely required by the scope 
and harmony of the passage:'' i.e., he will make 
the Scripture here testify that the Pharisees and all 
the Jews immersed their whole bodies before eating, 
as often as they came from the market. '' Surely," 
says he, p. 3Y, ''the Jews could have immersed 
themselves after coming from the market." Surely 
they could, if they never went from the market, and 



DR. CAMPBELL. lOT 

took their meals where they could not. But Mr. 
Judd mistakes the question. The inquiry should 
be, not whether they surely could immerse them- 
selves, but whether they surely did. It is not ne- 
cessary to show that the act of immersion was phy- 
sically impossible : the proper inquiry is, not whe- 
ther it was impossible to be done, but whether it can 
possibly be true that it was actually done. Surely 
the Jews could have eaten Stephen like cannibals 
after they had stoned him ; for the thing was not 
impossible to be done : but it was impossible that it 
should be true that it was done. Of such a custom 
of immersing the whole body as often as they came 
from the market, there is not a scrap of evidence in 
the wide world, except in the assumed meaning of 
the word baptize. The manners and customs of the 
Jews have been well known; and no such cus- 
tom was ever known or heard of, till invented as 
a historical fact necessary to help the Baptists out 
of this difficulty. 



DR. GEORGE CAMPBELL ON MARK VIL 4, AND LUKE 

XL 38. 

The learned George Campbell, whom our Baptist 
brethren are so fond of quoting on these passages, 
in Mark vii. 4, and Luke xi. 38, finds it impossi- 
ble to carry out his theory. He is about the work 
of translating the New Testament : and he is deter- 



108 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

mined beforehand that baptize must mean exclu- 
sively immerse. 

Mark says, that the '' Pharisees and all the Jews, 
when they come from the market, except they bap- 
tize themselves, eat not.'' Mr. Campbell does not 
believe that they immersed themselves as often as 
they came from the market. What does he do ? 
Does he give a grammatical and faithful translation 
of the word baptize ? He dares not. He gives no 
translation : he makes a gloss : he gives a commen- 
tary, and corrects and alters the diction of the Scrip- 
tures by substituting his comment in the place of 
the words which the Holy Ghost teacheth. And 
this is his comment — for no scholar, I trust, will 
ever venture to call it a translation. " For the 
Pharisees, and indeed all the Jews, who observe 
the tradition of the elders, eat not except they have 
washed their hands by pouring a little water 
UPON them!" The w^ords, ''by pouring a little 
water upon them," are not in the original ; they are 
inserted by Mr. Campbell. And, in the name of 
wonder, I would demand, does the word NtTtrw 
(Nipto) necessarily limit the mode of washing to 
"pouring a little water on the hands ?" Does it not 
mean to ivash ; and simply '' wash ;" without re- 
ferring in the least to the mode ; whether by pouring 
the water on the hands, or by dipping them ? But 
let us go on with Mr. Campbell's translation : " For 
the Pharisees, and indeed all the Jews who observe 
the traditions of the elders, eat not except they have 



DR. CAMPBELL. 109 

washed their hands by pouiHng a little vjater upon 
them : and when thej come from the market, by 
DIPPING THEM." Does he call this a translation of 
the w^ords ^yi ^artr-tcrcovrat ? Does the verb haptizo 
then mean, to dip the hands? I repeat it: a 
comment this may be ; but it is no simple nor faith- 
ful translation of the word of God. ^or can a faith- 
ful translation of the passage be made, giving to 
''baptize" the meaning of '^ immerse," without 
making the passage speak that which Mr. Campbell 
held as not true. Carson is right, and must have 
the judgment of every unbiased scholar in his favor, 
that Campbell's notion of making this baptism refer 
to the hands by dipping them, is '' an ingenious de- 
vice, without any authority from the genius and 
practice of the language." 

Campbell's translation of Luke xi. 38 is still more 
remarkable. Luke, inspired by the Holy Ghost, 
says, '' The Pharisee marvelled that Jesus had not 
first been baptized before dinner" {^^(XTinaOYi). Which 
Campbell thus translates: ''But the Pharisee was 
surprised to observe that he used no washing be- 
fore dinner." Here the distinction between wash- 
ing and dipping cannot be pretended : and what be- 
comes of Campbell's argument about '' immerse" as 
being the only proper meaning of the word " bap- 
tize ?" Here the Scripture says, '' The Pharisee 
marvelled that Jesus had not been ho.ptized before 
dinner." Campbell dares not translate the word 
''baptize" here by the Avord "immerse:" nor does 
10 



110 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

he find it possible to introduce the word ''hands!" 
The first would make the Bible speak falsehood, and 
the latter would be too gross '' an alteration of the 
diction of the Holy Ghost." He therefore gives up 
all talk about immersing or dipping— and says, " He 
used NO WASHING before dinner," and so is, after all, 
driven on to the very ground adopted in our common 
English translation. 

t>R0FESS0R RIPLEY ON MARK VIL 4, AND LUKE XI. 38. 

The remarks of Professor Ripley on these two 
passages, in his examination of Professor Stuart, 
are, it seems to me, as curious a piece of non-com- 
mittal, and of tripping lightly over ground on which 
one dares not tread firmly, as can be found in the 
whole compass of Biblical criticism. 

He thinks the passage in Mark may be rendered, 
''without the least violence to its language," so as 
to make it read that the Pharisees and all the Jews 
immerse their whole bodies as often as they come 
from the market. 

" May be rendered !'^ " without violence to the 
language!" Is that proper reading? Is that tKe 
truth, concerning what was customarily done by 
the Jews upon coming from the market ? Does 
Professor Bipley believe that such a custom was so 
universal and so invariable among the Jews, as to 
make it a wonder, that Jesus should sit down to 
.dinner without having first immersed his whole 



PROFESSOR RIPLEY. Ill 

body? Hear him. ''That some of the stricter sort, 
that many, enough to justify the Evangelist's gene- 
ral expression, did practice total ablution on the oc- 
casion mentioned, is altogether credible." Some — 
of the stricter so7't I — many ! enough to justify the 
Evangelist ! — is altogether ci^ediUe ! Then Pro- 
fessor Ripley dares not join, without misgiving, in 
affirming that '' alt the Jews" had the custom of im- 
mersing themselves when they came from the mar- 
ket? No. He says, ''In the absence of clear satis- 
fying proof, it is not becoming to make positive as- 
sertions." How is this? The word "baptize" mean 
exclusively "immerse ;" — the Holy Ghost affirm that 
they baptize themselves ; — and yet no " clear satis- 
fying proof" that they immerse themselves ! Is the 
witness not a credible one, oris there some doubt 
whether the word means "immerse?" 

But Professor Ripley says he is by no means satis- 
fied that this is a " necessary view of the passage," 
viz., that they immerse themselves. "Necessary /^' 
Will he hold to it at all ? We shall see. 

But says he again, " However striking the lan- 
guage of Mark may, by some, be considered, as re- 
cognizing such a practice (and the language is cer- 
tainly coincident with such a practice, especially 
when we look at it by the investigations respecting 
" baptize" on the preceding pages), yet I am not 
disposed to urge it." Not diposed to urge it? Does 
he believe it ? Will he venture to stand upon that 
ground ? Will he venture either to affirm it or deny 



112 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

it ? No — he dares not rest upon either ground, and 
make the Bible read either " except they immerse 
themselves/' or ''except they immerse their hands." 
He gently feels the ground of the first with his foot, 
but dares not venture upon it. He then poises him- 
self, and presses with the other foot upon other 
ground ; but he dares not rest upon this and aban- 
don the first. With regard to the first he says, '' In 
the absence of clear, satisfying proof, it is not be- 
coming to make any positive assertions;" ''the lan- 
guage is coincident with such a practice ;" "it may 
be so rendered without the least violence ;" "^yet I 
am not disposed to urge it." With regard to the se- 
cond he says, "But assuming the ground, that the 
evangelist did not intend to distinguish a total bath- 
ing from a partial washing, I again inquire did he 
distinguish one sort of partial washing from another 
sort of partial washing, one of which sorts was per- 
formed by dipping the hands into water ?" And yet, 
assuming this ground, he assumes it only to argue : 
he reaches back to the other, and reminds us again 
that he has already said that the w^ord ^a7iti6u>vtai in 
this passage, " may without any violence " be 
considered as distinguishing a total immersion from 
a washing of the hands. Thus he will venture for- 
ward to argue upon one ground, provided he may 
keep open a safe retreat to the other. How firmly 
he may feel the ground under him may be inferred 
by his evident concern to keep open a retreat to the 
ground on which, alas, he is afraid to stand; and 



PROFESSOR RIPLEY. 113 

concerning which he admits that there is an ^' absence 
of clear, satisfying proof 

Standing thus with light and uncertain tread 
upon both grounds, he is compelled to make the Bi- 
ble give an uncertain sound : and while professing 
to fix the sense with critical accuracy, he actually 
proposes to make it read, in both passages, with an 
ALIAS. After the word ''baptize" (wash) in Mark 
vii. 5 (which he would read ''immerse, or bathe"), 
he says, "The word hands may be considered as 
understood, or the word themselves may be under- 
stood." There is an "absence of clear, satisfying 
proof" that they immersed themselves; and he is 
not certain that they simply immersed their hands. 
So he would split the difference by making the Bible 
read both ways, putting in an alias. In the same 
manner, in Luke xi. 38, he proposes the introduction 
of the same double reading for one single word. 
"And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that 
he had not first washed before dinner : that he had 
not first IMMERSED ; that is, himself, or his hands." 

I have some fault to find with Professor Ripley's 
criticism, on the score of grammatical accuracy ; for 
this, too, it appears to me, he has sacrificed on the 
altar of exclusive immersion. 

Says Professor Ripley, " The verb (^antL^covtav) is 
in the middle voice ; and as there is no object ex- 
pressed after it, it would be lawful, in order to ex- 
press the Greek, to employ, as Professor Stuart has, 
the word themselves, as being contained in the verb 
10-^ 



114 • LAW OF BAPTISM. 

itself." This is correct; save that instead of simply 
being lawful to do as Professor Stuart has done, it is 
indispensable to do so, unless you can translate it by 
an English word, which, like the Greek middle 
voice of a transitive verb, has a reflexive sense, im- 
plying that the agent is himself both the subject 
and the object of the verb. Thus, if we say, " Ex- 
cept they tf(2s7i" — the meaning is except they wash 
themselves: or if we say, ''Except they bathe^^ — the 
object of the bathing is still themselves. But in what 
follows, it appears to me that Professor Ripley is 
most palpably and indefensibly in the wrong. He says, 
" As the verb vi^o^vtav (wash), in the former part 
of the passage, has, in the middle voice, an object 
(x^i'^a^ — hands) after it, it is certainly justifiable to 
maintain, that the verb in the latter part of the pas- 
sage (i5a7i'tt(SiovtaL) has the same word understood 
after it for its object." 

Now the middle voice does indeed admit an ob- 
ject after it, as in the case of vL^oivtai. It would 
therefore have been justifiable for the writer to have 
placed an object after ^aTctiacovtai — had his meaning 
allowed it. But when the writer omits the object 
in such a case, and the meaning of the word is still 
reflexive, the subject of the verb is its implied ob- 
ject. When the writer in such a case omits to ex- 
press another object, we pervert his meaning, if we 
understand or supply an object other than the one 
implied in the very form of the verb, which makes 
its object identical with its agent. Thus Professor 



PROFESSOR RIPLEY. 115 

Stuart has most grammatically read the word i^arc- 
rtcTcovfat (Baptisontai) ''they wash themselves.'' And 
it certainly is not ''justifiable ;" it is a flagrant vio- 
lation of the rules of grammar, to supply, as Pro- 
fessor Ripley has done, the word hands, instead of 
themselves. 

In Luke xi. 38, the word is in the passive voice. 
It not only has not the word " hands" after it, but 
does not admit the word to be supplied as its object. 
The grammatical rendering is, "that he had not 
been baptized.^^ The passage in Mark vii. 4, shows 
that, under such circumstances, people baptized 
themselves (they did it for themselves ; they were 
not baptized by others). Hence, it is doing justice 
to the meaning, to say, without being tied down to 
grammatical nicety, "that he had not first washed,^^ 
or "that he had not first ivashed himself.''^ This 
does not change the object concerning which the 
baptism is affirmed. But to supply the word hands, 
as Professor Kipley proposes, is to take an unwar- 
rantable license. It does violence to the grammati- 
cal construction, and changes the object of the af- 
firmation. It is quite as gross a violation of gram- 
matical usage, as though the passage were made to 
read in English, " That he had not first been baptized 
his hands."* I will only add, that the word hands 



•^ Where the accusative is put, by synecdoche, after the 
passive voice, it limits the action of the verb to the part ex- 
pressed by that accusative. If the writer means so to limit 
his meaning, he always supplies the accusative ; if he does 



116 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

is not in this passage, or near it. The word baptize 
used alone and simply, as it is here used by Luke, 
has no inherent quality by which it should be 
thought to be limited in the action which it ex- 
presses to the hands alone. The word '' hands" is 
imported through the channel of commentary ; and 
commentary elaborated, as I think I have shown, by 
a process of bad criticism. 

BAPTIST MISSIONARY TRANSLATIONS. 

Our Baptist brethren claim that ^' to them is com- 
mitted the sole guardianship of pure and faithful 
translations of the oracles of God into the languages 
of the earth."* I should like to know how their 
foreign translations of these two passages, Mark vii. 
4, and Luke xi. 38, read. Do they make the Phari- 
sees and all the Jews immerse themselves as often 
as they come from the market ? or do they make 
them simply dip their hands ? Which of these two 



not, he who adds that accusative alters the meaning of the 
writer. The license is altogether unwarrantable. In the 
present case, such an addition is a flagrant alteration of, and 
addition to, the word of God. 

Mr. Carson himself, on grammatical grounds, rejects the 
gloss of those who would supply the word hands in this pas- 
sage and in Mark vii. 4. He says, p. 78, " When no part is 
mentioned or excepted, the whole body is always meant." 

■5^ American and Foreign Bible Society Report, 1840, p. 79. 



MISSIONARY TRANSLATIONS. IIT 

acts do our Baptist brethren — ''the sole gua.rdians 
of pure and faithful translations'^ — teach the heathen 
is the baptism which the Holy Ghost speaks of in 
Mark vii. 4? Do they teach the heathen to be- 
lieve that the Pharisee marvelled that the Saviour 
had not immersed himself before dinner ; or that he 
had not dipped his hands before dinner? Methinks 
the ''guardians of pure and faithful translations'^* 
should agree in this matter. Infallibility should not 
be divided ; and where it is so, the division shows 
that neither party is infallible. The truth may lie 
on neither side. 

With these coadjutors, Campbell and Woolsey 
on my right hand, and Carson and Judd on my left, 
I should like to go and knock at the door of the 



* Says Professor Eaton, in his speech before the Baptist 
Bible Society, at their anniversary (Report of American and 
Foreign Bible Society, p. 79), "Never, sir, was there a chord 
struck that vibrated simultaneously through so many Bap- 
tist hearts, from one extremity of the land to the other, as 
when it was announced that the heathen world must look to 
them alone for an unveiled view of the glories of the Gospel 
of Christ." ''A deep conviction seized the minds of almost 
the whole body that they were divinely and peculiarly set for 
the defence and dissemination of the Gospel, as delivered to 
men by its Heavenly Author. A new zeal in their Master's 
cause, and unwonted kindlings of fraternal love glowed in 
their hearts ; and an attracting and concentrating move- 
ment, reaching to the utmost extremity of the mass, began, 
and has been going on, and increasing in power ever since." 



118 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

Baptist Foreign Missionary establishments, and in- 
quire — Brethren, how do you translate the word of 
God? If they answer — ''We make the Bible say 
that the Pharisees and all the Jews immerse them- 
selves as often as they come from the market," then 
Campbell and Woolsey shall reply — '' Brethren, this 
is not right; you make the word of God speak false- 
hood." If the missionaries answer — '' We make the 
Bible say that the Pharisees and all the Jews dip 
their hands simply, when they come from the mar- 
ket," then the brethren on my left shall reply, Car- 
son and Judd shall make answer — '' Brethren, the 
word of God says that the Pharisees and all the 
Jews immerse themselves, before eating, as often as 
they come from the market, and you have given no 
faithful translation. You have corrupted the word 
of God. You have corrected and altered the diction 
of the Holy Ghost." From the sword of the bre- 
thren — either of those on my right hand or of those 
on my left, the missionary translators cannot escape. 
And now having proved the missionary translation 
unfaithful — the brethren on my right and the bre- 
thren on my left shall turn their arms against each 
other.* These shall demonstrate that those have 



•^ Professor Eaton, of Hamilton Baptist Institute, in his 
speech before the Baptist Bible Society, at their anniversary 
in 1840 [See Report of said Society, p. 74], says, '* The 
translation" of the Baptist Missionaries "is so undeniably 
correct," that its incorrectness could not be "pretended,*' 



MISSIONARY TRANSLATIONS. 119 

made the Bible speak falsehood ; those shall demon- 
strate that these have disguised and corrupted the 
word of Grod. Neither can resist the assault of the 
other: each scheme is certainly and totally de- 
stroyed. And when the battle is fought, in which 
I have nothing to do but to stand still and wait the 
issue — when the battle it fought, till each party is 
so beaten that he can fight no longer ; I would take 
them by the hand, and say, '' Brethren, abandon the 
ground on which you must mutually destroy each 



•'without committing t lie objector's character for scholar- 
ship and candor." "Who are they, sir," said he, ''who 
cavil upon the plain meaning of the original word whose 
translation is so offensive ? Are they the Porsons, and the 
Campbells, and the Greenfields, and such like ?" " No, sir," 
— "But the cavillers, sir, are men who, whatever maybe 
their standing in other respects, have no reputation as lin- 
guists and philologists to lose. There really can be no ra- 
tional doubt in the mind of any sound and candid Greek 
scholar, about the evident meaning of the words in question. 
I venture to say, at the risk of the little reputation for 
Greek scholarship which I possess, that there are no Avords 
of plainer import in the Bible. The profane tampering 
which has been applied to these words," etc., etc. 

I shall not dispute here, that all this may be very modest 
and catholic. It is at least such matter as the American and 
Foreign Bible Society (Baptist) are willing to append to their 
report, and publish to the world. But I should like to see 
which side Professor Eaton would take amid these com- 
batants ; and in what plight he would stand when the battle 
is over, take which side he would. 



120 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

other, or else fight on for ever. Do you not see that 
each is defenceless in his own position, and irresist- 
ble when he attacks that of the other ? Between 
you both the truth comes out clear ; that baptism is 
not necessarily immersion ; and that while you en- 
deavor to make it so, you are on the one hand com- 
pelled to make the Bible speak falsehood, and on 
the other, to alter and corrupt the word of God.'' 

And what shall they do ? Shall they make peace 
on the only rational ground ? Or shall one yield 
his judgment to the other, and vote that one opinion 
to be infallible ? Or, for the sake of saving the Bap- 
tist cause, shall they strike hands and be made 
friends : agreeing, on the one party, to allow the 
Bible to speak falsehood, provided it may only speak 
immersion ; and agreeing, on the other party, pro- 
vided immersion may be retained, to admit the word 
of God to be altered, and disguised and corrupted, 
by ^^ an ingenious conceit, without any authority 
from the practice of the language" in which the New 
Testament was written ? 

I would respectfully ask our Baptist brethren to 
look into this matter. I would respectfully call their 
attention to the necessity laid upon them in their 
present position, of falling upon one of the three 
points of the alternative, which here presents itself 
to them. With their present disagreement, in which 
a part of them side with Carson and Judd, and a 
part with Campbell and Woolsey, it is impossible 
for them to give a faithful translation, on the Baptist 



THE SCRIPTURAL IDEA. 121 

principle, without entering into a compromise, which 
shall either make the Bible speak falsehood, or else 
alter and pervert the sacred diction of the word of 
God. I would respectfully suggest to the brethren 
of each of these two parties, the necessity of look- 
ing into these foreign translations ; and of taking 
heed, lest in their zeal to maintain immersion, they 
unconsciously fall into such a compromise as this. 
It surely becomes them to whom '' is committed the 
sole guardianship of pure and faithful translations 
of the oracles of God, into the languages of the 
earth," to be careful and uncompromising here. 

SCRIPTURAL IDEA OF BAPTISM. 

For giving a definition to ''baptize" which shall 
refer to the intent and the import, and omit all refer- 
ence to the mode — a definition which shall express 
the substance of baptism, with no reference to the 
circumstance — we have the soundest warrant and 
the most explicit example in the word of God. Thus : 
Jesus, with his disciples, was baptizing in Judea ; 
John in Enon (John iii. 22-26). A question arose 
between some of John^s disciples and the Jews 
''about PURIFYING." To settle it, they come and 
refer it to John under the shape of a question about 
"BAPTIZING." Their minds fastened on the sub- 
stance, not on the circumstance. Their idea of "bap- 
tism was not the modern Baptist idea. Baptism 
with them w^as not an immersing, but a purifying. 
11 



122 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

Their question is about baptizing ; but it is not 
about dipping, or sprinkling, or pouring, or immers- 
ing, but about prRiFYiNG : and they state the ques- 
tion to John as a question about haptizing. In their 
view the words ''baptize-- and "purify^' are so far 
synonymous, that in a debate about purifying, they 
may use either the word purify or the word baptize. 
But with them the word purify could not be synony- 
mous with immerse : for their common purifications 
of persons were either in the general mode of leash- 
ing, or in the particular mode of sprinkling — never 
necessarily in the mode of immersinor. 

So again in Mark vii. 4, there is a talk about bap- 
tizing ; and whatever was done, Mr. Woolsey justly 
maintains was done by the use of the ''water-pots.'' 
But John ii. 6, speaks of these water-pots as set 
''after the manner of the purifying of the Jew^s.^' 
Here, too, baptism is not an immersion in fact, much 
less in the idea. The idea of baptism here is not a 
mere mode of applying wat^r — certainly not the 
mode of immersion, but ?^ purifying. 

So again in Luke xi. 38, 39, upon the Pharisee's 
wondering that Jesus had not been baptized before 
dinner, our Lord took occasion to say to him, "Ye 
Pharisees make clean (in the original, purify) the 
outside.'' Here neither the Saviour nor the Phari- 
see considered the essence of the baptism as lying 
in the mode, but in the intent and in the import. 
Baptism, in their view, was a washing or purifying. 

So again in the Apocrypha, Judith xii. t, it is said 



THE SCRIPTURAL IDEA. 123 

that Judith went out into the valley of Bethulia and 
washed (Sept. baptized lie'^self^ in the camp {^Tfi -ar^c, 
rtYiyri^) AT (not in) a fountain of water in the camp. 
The context shows that the object of this baptizing 
was to remove a ceremonial uncleanness. '' She 
without doubt strictly obeyed the law, and did what 
the law intended that she should do. But the law 
in such cases simply commanded washing" (Lev, 
XV.). The narrator does not intend to signify that 
she went beyond the law, but that she observed it : 
and in his view wash is synonymous with baptize in 
denoting a religions ordinance — a ceremonial purifi- 
cation. 

So in Ecclesiasticus xxiv. 25, the words baptize 
and wash are used interchangeably as purely synony- 
mous : '' He that baptizeth himself after the touch- 
ing of a dead body, what availeth his washing?" 
The allusion is to ISTumbers xix. 11, etc., where the 
law simply required washing, or purifying. The es- 
sential thing in that purifying was performed by 
sprinkling ; and of him who should fail in this, it 
was said, '' because the ivater of separation was not 
sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean : his un- 
cleanness is yet upon him." 

If we therefore follow the Scripture pattern, or 
the pattern of the Greek of the Apocrypha, in fixing 
the proper idea of the word '' baptize" as used to 
denote the sacred use of water in a religious ordi- 
nance, we shall entirely omit all reference to mode, 
and fix our thoughts upon the intent and the import 



124 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

of baptism ; the substance and not the shadow. 
Baptism will not be a dipping, or an immersing, or 
a pouring, or a sprinkling, but a washing, a puri- 
fying. 

The word being thus used in the New Testament 
to denote a ritual washing or purifying (which it 
never signified in classic Greek) ; being used more- 
over where the mode of purifying was either sprink- 
ling or pouring ; and being, still further, so used that 
to make it read immerse would make the Bible 
speak what confessedly is not true ; I think we 
have clearly — and established beyond the possibility 
of a successful denial — a generic and peculiar New 
Testament use of the word ; in ivhich use baptize 
primarily denotes a ritual purifying by some manner 
of application of luater, ivhich is called '' the wash- 
ing of water :^^ and secondarily it denotes an inward 
purifying by the Holy Ghost ^ called '' the washing 
of regeneration.'^^ 

These things being so, how idle it is for our Bap- 
tist brethren to ask, as they often do, '^ If any appli- 
cation of w^ater, washing, sprinkling, pouring, etc., 
means baptism, why did not the sacred writers 
sometimes use the Greek word which means to 
wash, sprinkle, and pour ?" 

The reason is plain : 

1. Baptize is used with a peculiar but generic re- 
ference to this purifying, without any reference to 
mode. But the words ''sprinkle'' and ''pour'' are 
not so used. Their use in the New Testament is 



THE SCRIPTURAL IDEA. 125 

not limited to the sacred use of water ; and they 
refer to a mode ; while the word baptize in the New 
Testament refers to none. They cannot therefore 
be interchanged with ^'baptize" as though they 
were synonymous with it. The w^ord '' wash" is so 
interchanged, because it so far accords with baptize 
as not to refer to any particular mode. 

2. It is not true that the words, wash, sprinkle, 
pour, are not used in the New Testament ivitJi refer- 
ence to baptism. As often as anything is said in 
the New Testament in allusion to a mode of bap- 
tism, these words are invariably used. As to the 
word wash^ the Scriptures refer to baptism as the 
^'washing of water;" and the baptism of the Holy 
Ghost they call '' the washing of regeneration." As 
to the word sprinklej the prophets describe the puri- 
fying which they foretell, as a sprinkling : ''So shall 
he sprinkle many nations ;" '' Then will I sprinkle 
clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean." As 
to the wordpo?/r, the mode of the Spirit's baptizing 
is spoken of as a pouring, a shedding forth, a falling 
upon. But where do you read of the immersing of 
(with) '^ivater^^^ or of the immersing o{ many ''na- 
tions," or of the immersing of " regeneration," or 
of the immersing "of (in) the blood of Christ?" 
Nowhere in the word of God : nowhere, even in 
figure. The very idea is strange and preposterous. 
We may retort the question, if it be so, that baptism 
is nothing but immersion, and that immersion is all 
essential to it ; why is it that we never read of the 



126 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

immersion of ''regeneration'' — or of a promise, then 
I will immerse you in " clean water and ye shall be 
clean :" — or of the immersion of the blood of Christ? 



VII. TRANSLATING THE WORD ''BAPTIZE.'' 

Our English translators employed the words bap- 
tize and baptism, which had been for ages in common 
use, to denote the ordinance, and which had become 
vernacular in the English tongue. Of Greek origin 
these words undoubtedly were, but they were as 
well understood as the words geography, astronomy^ 
biography, rhetoric, grammar and history are now ; 
which are as truly of Greek original, and as purely 
Greek, as the words baptize and baptism. 

I have proved, as I think, with regard to some 
passages, that immerse could not have been the 
sense of baptize, and that the word could not have 
been so translated consistently with truth. But had 
such been its meaning, the word immerse could not 
have been better understood than the word baptize. 
Immerse is as purely Latin as baptize is Greek. 
Baptize became an English word as soon as the 
Gospel was preached in England ; and our Baptist 
brethren contend that baptism was then performed 
by immersion. Had this been the case, and had the 
old Britons been taught to consider immersion the 
essence of baptism, the word baptism in their lan- 
guage would have signified immersion ; and the 
Greek word baptizo would have as truly exjiressed 



TRANSLATING THE WORD. 121 

the idea as the Latin word immerse. At all events, 
as our Baptist brethren claim that the Gospel was 
first preached in Britain by immersers, and that im- 
mersion was the exclusive mode of baptism till near 
the time our translation was made, they ought for 
very shame to give over their abuse of our English 
translators as though they had transferred the word 
instead of translating it. Either the claims of our 
Baptist brethren are idle and false, or the transfer- 
ring was done by immersers ; and then their accusa- 
tions against Pedobaptists, as though they had 
transferred the word baptize for the purpose of " con- 
cealing its true import," are idle and false. Our 
Baptist brethren may choose which horn of the di- 
lemma they will: either their claims are idle and 
false, or their accusations are idle and false. The 
word was, indeed, originally transferred into our 
language : but our English translators did not make 
the transfer; they gave a proper translation — em- 
ploying THE VERY word that had been exclusively 
employed to denote the ordinance, ever since the 
day that the Christian religion was first planted in 
their native land. Baptize was then as much an 
English word as almost any word in the English 
language, most of the words having been as much 
derived from a foreign source us the word baptize. 

But neither of the words, immerse, sprinkle, pour, 
nor any other word that relates merely to the mode 
of the ordinance, could express the idea of baptism. 
Baptism is a sacred rite, of peculiar signification and 



128 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

design. Whatever be the mode of performing it, 
such a mode of applying water may be a very fa- 
miliar thing with any people on earth. Such things 
as dipping, immersing, sprinkling, and pouring, are 
very common among all nations wherever there is 
water; and of course every language must have a 
word for each of these things. But certainly it will 
not be contended that all heathen nations are in the 
habit of performing such a thing as a Christian bap- 
tism, in the Christian sense. The Baptists do not 
consider every immersion sl bajDtism, in the Christian 
sense. If they do, then, so far as baptism is con- 
cerned, they must hold communion with every man 
who accidentally falls overboard ; if they do not, 
then they do not consider immersion as equivalent 
to baptism ; and it is idle to pretend that the word 
baptism is equivalent to the ivo7^d immerse, or that 
immerse is an adequate or faithful translation of the 
word baptize. On our part we do not hold every 
man baptized who has been accidentally sprinkled 
in a shower. We cannot therefore claim that the 
word baptize is equivalent to the word sprinkle: 
and do not consider the word sprinkle or the word 
pour as a proper translation of the word baptize.* 



* Our Baptist brethren are fond of making a representa- 
tion touching this matter, which is very plausible and cap- 
tivating to ignorant and unreflecting minds ; but nothing 
can be more disingenuous in the estimation of those who 
understand the subject. Thus, Mr. Woolsey, p. 211, endea- 



TRANSLATING THE WORD. 129 

No word which expresses simply a mode of apply- 
ing water can fill up the idea of the word baptizo ; 
and any word which limits the application to any 
one mode is an arrant perversion of the Scriptures, 
which expressly speak of baptism under two modes, 
sprinkling and pouring ; and refer to it again and 
again under the more general idea of a purifying, or 
a washing. The mode of immersion is the very one 
which finds the least countenance in the word of 
God ; if, indeed, there is any unquestionable autho- 



vors to show what ''effort" we make ''to get around the 
plain instruction of tlie apostle" in Rom. vi. 4, by insinu- 
ating that we would have it read, — or take the ground which 
requires us to read — " Buried with him by sprinkling.^'' The 
Baptist Bible Society is equally disingenuous and injurious 
— not only with regard to us, but with regard to the truth 
in this matter. Thus, in the Appendix to the Report for 
1840, p. 52, they say, " If a Pedobaptist translator consci- 
entiously believes that sprinkling or pouring is the meaning 
of baptizo, let him thus render the word." The reader can- 
not fail, I think, to see the fallacy and disingenuousness of 
such an argument, and such a mode of representing Pedo- 
baptist views. Our brethren represent us as holding what 
I think they must know we do not hold, viz., that baptize in 
the New Testament signifies a mode of applying water; is 
synonymous with the word sprinkle ; and can be adequately 
and truly translated by the term sprinkle. Assuming that 
we maintain this, and so representing us, they endeavor to 
show the absurdity of such ground; and then " covering up 
and concealing" our real views — they endeavor to ^^transfer^^ 
that absurdity to our account. 



130 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

rity for that mode, aside from its being one of the 
modes of washing or purifying. 

In translating the word baptize, therefore, we 
must have a word which possesses two qualities : 
1st. It must denote a sacred application of water in 
a ritual purifying ; 2d. It must not limit the appli- 
cation to any one mode. To wash or to purify, 
comes nearer the true idea, than either of the words, 
sprinkle or immerse ; and they are the only words 
which can be employed with exclusive reference to a 
mode of baptizing, consistently with the truth of 
the Bible. Yet neither wash, nor jpurify, has the 
exact and full signification, by the common accepta- 
tion of these terms. To wash did not originally, in 
our language, mean a ritual purification, much less 
did immerse have that meaning ; and to purify does 
not in the common use of our language signify ne- 
cessarily an application of water. We may use 
them, with a modification of their common meaning ; 
and the connection will show in what sense they 
are used. 

But after all, when the new idea of baptism came 
into the minds of the old Britons, they needed either 
a new word, or a new adaptation of an old word to 
express that idea. They wanted a term which 
should express a ritual purifying by some manner 
of sacred application of water : and it mattered not 
what word they employed, nor from what source it 
was derived, provided they might agree respecting 
what word should express the idea. To illustrate 



TRANSLATING THE WORD. 131 

this, — in the South Sea Islands, they had no know- 
ledge of such a thing as a horse, and of- course no 
word for horse. But in translating the Bible for 
them, it was necessary to find something to substi- 
tute for the word horse. The animal might have 
been described by a long circumlocution, by the use 
of words already existing in their language ; but 
this would not do : the word must be translated. 
How could this be done, as the natives had no word 
for horse ? The Missionaries made a word for them. 
The Greek word for horse is Hippos, and by leaving 
off the last letter, the word would conform in shape 
and sound to the structure of native words much 
better than the English word horse, and quite as 
well as any other combination of sounds that might 
be invented. So the Missionaries translated the 
word horse by the word ^^ Hippo. ^^^ But this word 
would need explanation. Grant it. And so has the 



■^'^ The Missionaries at the Sandwich Islands found the Ha- 
waiian language so copious that they were not under the ne- 
cessity of introducing a great number of foreign words, 
except proper names. ''We have, however," say they, 
''adopted Ekalesia for church, bapetiso for baptize, bape- 
tite for baptist, lepero for leper, aeto for eagle, alopeke 
for fox, berena for bread, enemi for enemy, himeni for 
hymn, halelu for psalm, and a few other foreign words, 
most of which are well established, and familiar to common 
readers." — [Report of the American Bible Society, 1837.] 
The classical and Biblical scholar will at once recognize the 
origin of these words. 



132 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

word baptizo to be explained by Baptist translators, 
and they explain it to mean — most erroneously as 
we believe — immersion. 



NO NEW THING TO TRANSFER PECULIAR WORDS FROM 
ONE LANGUAGE TO ANOTHER. 

This transferring of words from one language to 
another is not so uncommon a process as many of 
our brethren seem to suppose it. What English 
word shall be substituted for the Greek word •' Te- 
trarch/' in Luke iii. 1? "What for the Greek word 
'' Pentecost/- in Acts ii. 1 ? What for the Greek 
words '^Christ'' and ''Christians?"' "Christ" sig- 
nifies anointed; and so does the Hebrew "'Mes- 
siah.-' But to translate the word, in all cases, on 
the principle contended for by our Baptist brethren, 
would confound and destroy the meaning of many 
passages of Scripture. The word is applied by way 
of eminence, as an appellation, to the promised Re- 
deemer. In Matt. i. 1, 18, and Mark i., as often 
elsewhere, our Lord is called, not ''Jesus, the 
Christ,'' but " Jesus Christ." As George Campbell 
well says (D. Y., Part 4), "Though the word 
Anointed expresses the primitive import of the He- 
brew name, it does not convey the idea in which it 
was then universally understood. It was considered 
solely as the well known title of an extraordinary 
office, to which there was nothing similar among the 
people." That the word Christ has this peculiar 



TRANSFERRING THE WORD. 133 

meaning when applied to the Saviour, may be seen 
at once, by applying the word, in its English sense, 
to other personages, who are often spoken of by the 
same original words, both in Hebrew and Greek. 
How would it sound to hear David speaking of Saul^ 
as in Sam. xxiv. 6, repeatedly call that wicked king 
the " Christ of the Lord ?'' How would it sound in 
Isa. xlv. 1, to hear the Lord speaking to Cyrus, as 
to his " Christ ?" or, in Psalm cv., '' Touch not my 
Christs ?'' Here the sense as imperatively demands 
that the word be translated according to its original 
import, as other passages do that it should not be 
translated but transferred. 

I suppose it w^ould be lawful to talk to the Hin- 
doos, or the Burmans, about the Jewish '' Syna- 
gogues," though that too is a word of Greek origin. 
If any heathen have no term for such beings as 
devils, I suppose it would be lawful to introduce to 
them such words as the Greek Diabolos, or the Eng- 
lish word devil. It would be a matter of indiffer- 
ence whether you introduce to them our Hebraic 
English word ^^ Sabbath, '^ and teach them its mean- 
ing ; or teach them how to use one of their own old 
words with a new meaning. The volume of God's 
word might retain its Greek-English name Bible, or 
it might be turned into the words vernacular among 
the heathen, for ^-writings," or for ''The Book;'^ 
only teaching them to give a new idea to their com- 
mon words. Such words as ''Jubilee,'^ ''homer,'^ 
'' epah,'' ''shekel,'' " cherubim," might be transferred, 
12 



134 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

or old words selected, and taught to bear a meaning 
not originally their own, as should be found most 
convenient. 

A scholar, dealing in profane literature only, in 
translating from the ancient Greek writers, or from 
Cicero or Tacitus, might find himself compelled, 
either to give erroneous ideas, or to transfer into 
Burmese, or Japanese, such Avords as ^'Archon," 
'' Consul," '' Prsetor,'^ " Questor,'^ '' Censor,'^ " Sen- 
ator,'' ''Dictator," ''Tribune." " Who," says Camp- 
bell, "considers these names" (as transferred into 
our language) " as barbarous ?" " To have employed 
instead of them ' Alderman,' ' Sheriff,' etc., we 
should have justly thought much more exceptiona- 
ble." "I have heard," says he, " of a Dutch trans- 
lator of Caesar's Commentaries, who always rendered 
"consul" burgomaster; and in the same taste, all 
the other officers and magistrates of Rome." How 
could we have translated the Latin classics, and 
given the true idea, unless we had naturalized, in 
such cases, the very Latin words, and learned the 
ideas and the names together ? Where would have 
been our English ideas of su^h a thing as a " liba- 
tion," an "ovation," a "lustration," had we not im- 
ported, not only the names, but the very ideas, from 
the language and customs of heathenism ? Whence 
comes our English word " triumph ?" Whence 
come the now English words " Sultan," " Pacha," 
" Khan," " Bey?" What limit is there to the trans- 
ferring of the very words of the people who bring 



TRANSEERRING THE WORD. 135 

US new things and new ideas ? Look at our mili- 
tary terms : almost all adopted and transferred from 
the French. Look at our terms of chemistry, botany, 
and zoology : how many of them have been recently 
compounded from the Greek ? 

Now, unless baptism is already in use among the 
heathen, as a religious purification, and expressed 
by a word of their own, having this precise idea, in 
distinction from the idea of any simple mode of ad- 
ministering water, or at least in addition to such an 
idea of mode, it must be as inadequate and inaccu- 
rate a translation which shall use an old word of 
theirs, referring simply to the mode of applying 
water, as it would be to turn the Roman '^ Consul'^ 
into a Dutch '^Burgomaster." The translation is 
inadequate ; it is incorrect ; it misleads ; and that 
aside from the consideration that to translate Bap- 
tize, immerse, makes the Bible speak falsehood, even 
with regard to the mere mode. You may transfer 
the word Baptize ; you may call baptism in Siamese 
(as the Baptist Bible Society say our missionaries 
have done), '^Bapteetsamay,^^ conforming the shape 
of the word to the genius of the language, as in the 
Latin Baptizare, and the English baptize; and it 
is correct. It is as easy to teach them the new 
word as it is to teach them the new idea — the 
positive and peculiar Scripture idea of baptize. 
Or you may translate baptize into a word signifying 
to WASH ; still better, if you can find a word which 
signifies a ritual purifying by washing; and you 



136 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

have given a most faithful translation. But to trans- 
late the word by the word immerse, is to give an in- 
adequate, inaccurate, and, as we contend, a false 
idea. 



MARTIN LUTHER'S VERSION. 

Our Baptist brethren claim that Luther translated 
baptize by the word dip or immerse. Thus : 

Mr. Woolsey says, p. T4, '^ Luther, one of the 
great reformers, gave the Bible translated to the 
Germans, that they might read in their own lan- 
guage the wonderful works of God ; and he rendered 
baptize into a word signifying to immerse. '^ Again he 
says, p. 138, '' Or as Luther, the great reformer, ren- 
ders it in his German Testament,'' Johannes der 
Taufer, — ''John the Dipper." 

So the Baptist Bible Society, in their report for 
1840, p. 89, say, '' Other translators may do as they 
please; baptize may be twisted into all sorts of 
meanings except immersion — unless, indeed, in the 
case of old versions. Luther may say that it means 
to immerse, and his version shall continue to be cir- 
culated ; but wo be to the Baptists if they say so ; 
and w^hat is the reason ?" 

Mr. Woolsey compliments Luther, as ''this bold 
defender of the inalienable rights of every man to 
become personally acquainted with the truths of the 
Bible faithfully translated into his own vernacular 
tongue." 



LUTHER'S VERSION. 137 

We all agree with Mr. Woolsey in venerating the 
courage, the honesty, and the piety of Martin Lu- 
ther. But is Mr. Woolsey ignorant that the Ger- 
mans, and all Lutherans who use his translation, 
baptize by sprinkling, as Luther practiced and as 
Luther taught them? When a German minister 
takes water in his hand and sprinkles or pours it 
on the person baptized, saying, ''Ich taufe dich," 
does he xm^di^ I immerse you? Do the people so 
understand him ? Most certainly not. When Mar- 
tin Luther took water in his hand, and poured or 
sprinkled it on the head of a person, saying, '^ Ich 
taufe dich,^^ did he mean ''I immerse you ?" Would 
the people so understand him ? It is impossible. 
Luther could never have used that word in connec- 
tion Avith such an action, had it in his day been 
equivalent to immerse. The words Taufen and 
Taiifer, which Mr. Woolsey and the Baptist Bible 
Society translate "immerse'' and ''dipper^" mean 
no such thing. They are used in German with spe- 
cific and exclusive reference to the rite of baptism, 
which the Germans perform by sprinkling or affusion. 

Thus, the English and German Dictionary, by E. 
A. Weber, of acknowledged and unquestionable au- 
thority, gives the following definitions of the words 
in question. I copy from the Leipsic edition of 
1833, by Tauchnitz: 

Taufe, baptism, christening. 

Taufen, to baptize, to christen. 

Taufer, baptizer, baptist. 
12* 



138 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

Taujling, person baptized. 

Taufname, Christian name. 

TaufcleiUj certificate from the church register. 

The same dictionary gives the following German 
words for the English words, immerge, immerse and 
immersion. It will be seen that Taufen is not 
among them. 

Immerge, eintauchen, versunken, vertiefen. 

Immerse, eintauchen, untertauchen, vertiefen. 

Immersion, untertauchung, versunkung. 

Burckhardt, in his German and English Lexicon 
(ed. Berlin, 1823), gives the same definitions, both 
in the English and in the German. 

From this it is manifest, that whatever might 
have been the etymology of the words Taufen and 
Taufer, they do not in German mean immerse or 
immerser. To give a German an idea of immer- 
sion you must use other words, different both in 
their origin, their meaning, and their form. 

The world will doubtless concur with Mr. Wool- 
sey in his encomium upon Luther as ''this bold de- 
fender of the inalienable right of every man'' to have 
the Bible " faithfully translated into his vernacular 
tongue." Doubtless Luther meant to give "the 
Bible translated to the Germans, that they might 
read in their own language the wonderful works of 
God." But the reader may judge whether Mr. 
Woolsey would not have spared his encomium upon 
Luther, had he not, in talking about Luther's trans- 
lation, undertaken to talk about a matter concerning 



SYRIAC VERSION. 139 

which he was not well informed. Because our 
English translators render the word baptize by the 
word wash in Mark vii. 4, and Luke xi. 38, Mr. 
Woolsey declares that they have been guilty of a 
'' glaring perversion of this Scripture, by suppressing 
the word baptize, and substituting the word wash,^^ 
p. 152. He contends, p. 153, that ^'the translators 
of our English Bible, for the sake of suppressing 
the true import of the words baptize and baptism,'' 
'' have not only concealed" the '^ instructions of the 
Holy Ghost," but " represented the Holy Ghost as 
using the most stupid tautology." But how does 
that "great reformer," and '' bold defender," trans- 
late these passages ? Mr. Woolsey declares that he 
has given to the Germans a Bible translated. How 
does Luther translate these passages ? He trans- 
lates them by the word " wash," the pure old Saxon 
word, the identical mother of our good old English 
word " ivash.^^ " Und wenn sie vom Markte kommen, 
essen sie nicht, sie waschen sigh denn ;" — they 
WASH THEMSELVES. So in Luko xi. 38, '^Da das 
der Pharisaer sah verwunderte er sich, dass er sich 
nicht vor dem essen gewaschen hatte," — that he 
had not washed himself. ^^ 

the peshito-syriac version. 

Our baptist brethren claim this version as evidence 
in favor of immersion. Thus, Mr. Woolsey affirms, 
p. 71, that "the venerable Peshito-Syriac version," 



140 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

which he thinks was '' evidently executed by the 
last of the first century," has baptize translated by 
immerse. 

If this were so, I think we have shown from 
higher authority, even from the Scriptures them- 
selves, that such a translation is wrong. The testi- 
mony of Evangelists and Apostles is as good against 
the mere opinion of all translators, as it is against 
testimony adduced from the heathen Greeks. 

But will Mr. Woolsey admit this translation to be 
good authority on the subject of baptism? Will 
Mr. Woolsey, after affirming, p. 252, that ''not a 
word is said about Infant Baptism," ''till the 
third century ;" will he, after all that he has said 
about "Mistress Lydia," p. 305, and its being ''quite 
certain that she was a maiden lady," p. 306 ; will 
Mr. Woolsey, after this, admit the " venerable 
Peshito-Syriac version," this " Protoplastic version," 
"the very best that has ever been made," as good 
authority on the subject of baptism? This Syriac 
version reads, that " when she (Lydia) was baptized 
WITH HER CHILDREN."* Will Mr. Woolscy, after 
affirming that this version was made by the last of 
the first century, and maintaining that it " cannot be 
determined" whether " it be the work of an inspired 
apostle or not," will he now admit that he was ^rong 
in declaring so positively that there is nowhere any 
mention of Infant Baptism till the third century f 



* Kurtz, p. 99. The Coptic version gives the same reading. 



SYRIAC VERSION. 141 

Will he admit, that he and all the Baptists are 
wrong in denying that Infant Baptism existed 
before the close of the second century, and ac- 
knowledge that the practice can be traced clearly 
and indubitably to the apostles : or will he for ever 
after be silent about the ''immersion" of the venera- 
ble '' Peshito-Syriac version V 

But it is not admitted that the Syriac version 
renders the word baptize by a word signifying im- 
merse. The best scholars deny it. Professor Stu- 
art shows that while the Syriac has a word, which 
means to plunge, dip, or immerse, the Syriac version 
does not employ that word, but another, which sig- 
nifies ''to confirm — to establish, '^ so that "Baptism, 
then, in the language of the Peshito, is the rite of 
confirmation simply, while the manner of this is 
apparently left without being at all expressed.''* 
An English Baptist, who is, as says a competent 
judge, " evidently a master in Israel," has recently 
written against the " Baptist Translation Society. 
This writer accords with Professor Stuart with re- 
gard to the meaning of the Syraic word by which 
baptize is translated in the version in question." 
"I confess," says he, "I can derive no countenance 
to my practice as a Baptist from this version." Con- 
cerning the Ethiopic and Coptic versions, he admits 
that " they must be set aside, if they are not used 



* From Judd's Reply to Professor Stuart, p. 164. 



142 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

against us (the Baptists) in the baptismal contro- 
versy.''* 

The ancient Syriac version is the present Bible 
of the ]N"estorian Christians. Their modern word 
for baptize is radically the word employed in the 
ancient version, and like the German taufen, and 
the English baptize^ it is exclusively appropriated to 
the ordinance of baptism. They baptize either by 
immersion or affusion, and make no objection when 
they see our missionaries baptize by sprinkling, but 
consider it as good and valid baptism. Mr. Woolsey 
is, therefore, as much mistaken here, as he is in the 
case of Martin Luther's version. 



DUTCH, DANISH AND SWEDISH VERSIONS. 

Our Baptist brethren affirm, that the '' Dutch, 
Danish and Swedish versions have the words in 
dispute translated bywords signifying immersion, "f 

On this subject I will simpl}^ quote the words of 
Dr. Henderson, who has studied the languages of 
Northern Europe on the ground, and is familiar 
with their idioms. Dr. Henderson is authority 
upon this subject, which will not probably be ques- 
tioned. 



^ See New York Evangelist, Jan. 23, 1841. 
f Report of the American Foreign Bible Society, 1840, p. 
38. Woolsey, p. 138. 



DUTCH, DANISH AND SWEDISH VERSIONS 143 

Says Dr. Henderson, ''As it respects the Gothic 
dialects, which have been repeatedly appealed to 
with great confidence, it is a settled point with all 
who are acquainted with them, that the reference is 
totally irrelevant. That the Maeso-Gothic daupian, 
the Anglo-Saxon dyppmi, the Dutch doopen, the 
Swedish dopa, the Danish dobe, and the German 
taufen, all correspond in sound to our English word 
dip, does not admit of any dispute, any more than 
the fact that dab, daub and dub have the same cor- 
respondence ; but nothing would be more erroneous 
than to conclude, with the exception of the Anglo- 
Saxon, that they must have the same signification. 
No Dutchman, Dane, Swede or German would for a 
moment imagine that the words belonging to their 
respective languages meant anything else than bap- 
tism, by the application of water to the body bap- 
tized. The words are never used in those languages 
in another sense, or in application to any other 
subject. Where the Germans would express dip or 
immerse, they employ tauchen and not taufen, which 
is the word by which baptize is translated. The 
Danes, in like manner, use dyp)pe and neddyppe, for 
dip, and not dobe. And that neither Luther, nor 
the authors of the Dutch, Danish and Swedish ver- 
sions, had any intention of conveying the idea of 
immersion as implied in baptize, is obvious from 
the preposition which they have used with the verb. 
Thus we read in German, mit wasser taufen ; in 
Danish, dobe metY^w(\. ; in Swedish, dopa med vatn ; 



144 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

in Dutch, doopen met wasser ; i. e., with water, and 
not in wasser — in water, i vand, i vatn; which 
phraseology is as foreign to these languages as the 
practice which it would sanction is unknown to the 
inhabitants of the countries in which they are 
spoken. Even the Mennonites in Holland, and other 
parts, though they reject Infant Baptism, administer 
the ordinance by pouring, and not by immersion." 

THE VULGATE. 

Our Baptist brethren are equallly hostile to the 
Yulgate as to the English version for having trans- 
ferred the word baptize. Thus, Mr. TToolsey says, 
p. 82, that " The Roman Catholic Bible, ?'. e., the 
Latin Yulgate, was the first to transfer baptize and 
other words, rather than translate them." Again, 
p. 83, he calls the Yulgate the " authorized Roman 
Bible." On p. 89, he classes our English Bible and 
the Yulgate together as ''unworthy models." 

Xow it is true that the Yulgate is the " authorized 
Bible" in the Roman Catholic church. But it is 
also true that the Yulgate was made before the 
Papal church had an existence. The Yulgate was 
declared the standard version of the Roman church 
by the Council of Trent, 1545: but it ought not to 
be forgotten that it was to an old copy of the Yul- 
gate, which providentially fell into the hands of 
Martin Luther, long before the Council of Trent, 
that we owe the Reformation. The Bible on which 



THE VULGATE. 145 

the Keformation was built, and which was in use by 
all the Western churches, before the Papal church was 
born, ought not, surely, thus to be thrown by with a 
sarcasm, as '' The Koman Catholic Bible. ^' In the 
time of Jerome, who was born about A. D. 330, 
there were several Latin versions of the Bible and 
of parts of the Bible. One of them, adopted by ec- 
clesiastical authority, had long been called the Vul- 
gate, or common version. In the process of trans^ 
cribing many times, many mistakes had crept into 
the common copies. In A. D. 383, Jerome began a 
revision of this ancient Vidgata, or Itala version — 
having before him the original Hebrew of the 
Old Testament, the original Greek of the ]N'ew> 
together with the Hexapla of Origen. With these, 
and with all other aids before him which the age 
afforded, Jerome sat down to the revision of the old 
Itala, or Yulgate ; a part of which revision is still 
extant (the book of Job, and the book of Fsalms), 
the remainder is lost. But impressed with the ne- 
cessity of a new version, and counselled by friends, 
he began at the same time a new version, which he 
completed A. D. 405, and which is now the well 
known Yulgate. This gradually prevailed, and in 
time entirely supplanted the old Itala. 

In this version the Greek, baptize, is adopted into 

the Latin as a Latin word. It was probably so in 

the old Itala. Jerome could not have changed the 

pi^actice of the whole Latin church in administering 

13 



146 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

the ordinance of baptism, and taught them to say 
^^baptizo te," instead of " subynergo te," had the lat- 
ter or any such word been in common use. I see 
no reason to doubt that, from the very day that bap- 
tism was first administered at Rome, or in the Latin 
tongue, the word baptize was at once adopted into 
the Latin tongue by a transfer from the Greek ; and 
if so, it was done either by, or with the sanction of 
the Apostles themselves. At all events, while 
there was a common Latin word for immerse and 
for submerge (these two English words are taken 
from the Latin) — Jerome, and the Christian world 
with him, did not employ either submerge or im- 
mergo, but baptizo. Now the Baptists affirm that 
the whole Christian world were Baptists at that 
time ; i. e., that they considered baptism to be synony- 
mous with immersion, and practiced accordingly. 
If this were so, then the Yulgate is rather a Baptist 
Bible than a Roman Catholic Bible ; and immersers 
first led the way in transferring the word baptize, 
instead of translating it by a word in common use. 
This outcry about " transferring'' and " concealing'^ 
comes to this at last. 

But an argument may be built upon these facts. 
The ancient Western church, whose common lan- 
guage w^as Latin, had an abundant supply of words 
to express immersion and submersion, if they had 
thought immersion the only baptism, or essential to 
it. But so far from employing one of their common 



THE VULGATE. 141 

words, they transferred the original Greek word 
baptize J adopted it into their language, and gave it a 
complete naturalization. When thej spoke of bap- 
tism, they called it an ablution, a washing, a distill- 
ing of the purifying dew : they spoke of it not as an 
immersion. As to the manner of performing bap- 
tism, even when they generally practiced immersion, 
they did not always do so, and of course never 
deemed it essential. What is the inevitable conclu- 
sion from these facts ? That they did not consider 
the word immerse, or the word submerge, as equiva- 
lent to the word baptize ; and that a substitution of 
these words for that would not be an adequate or 
faithful translation. 

Here, then, we have the judgment of the ancient 
church with regard to the propriety of transferring 
the word in question ; and that judgment founded 
upon the conviction that neither of their existing 
words would truly and adequately express the true 
idea of Christian baptism. 

This was the judgment of the Christian church 
in the time of Jerome ; and in his days the use of 
baptizo, as a common Latin word, was a custom, 
whereof the memory of man ran not to the contrary 
— as a practice in which all Christians who spoke 
the Latin language acquiesced and undoubtingly 
agreed. The transfer was, without any ground for 
doubt of which I am informed, made in the days 
OF THE Apostles themselves. It is not, as Mr. 



148 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

Woolsey's book and the Kepoii; of the Baptist Bible 
Society would lead those to suppose who are not 
otherwise informed, a recent invention, to oppose 
the Baptists, and " to conceal a part of God's re- 
vealed will from the nations of the earth, in a dead 
language, with a view of promoting party designs, 
and of preventing men from knowing his will, and 
their dutv and oblioration to obey him." 



INFANT BAPTISM. 149 



IV. 

INFANT BAPTISM. 

SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY. 

There are two questions with regard to baptism, 
on which evangelical Christians are divided ; one 
respecting the mode, and the other respecting the 
subjects. These two questions are entirely distinct, 
and there is no reason why those who differ concern- 
ing one might not agree concerning the other. 

Between us and our Baptist brethren there is no 
difference of opinion concerning the subjects of bap- 
tism, except concerning infants. We agree that 
adults are not to be baptized, save on a credible pro- 
fession of evangelical faith and repentance. The 
questions concerning the subjects are therefore lim- 
ited to this single inquiry : Are the infant children 
of believing parents to be baptized ? 

The law of the institution makes no express men- 
tion of infants. It is therefore contended that this 
is conclusive against Infant Baptism ; as in a posi- 
tive institution we are to go by the letter of the 
law ; and all beyond this, as well as everything short 
of this, is wrong. 
13-^ 



150 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

I humbly conceive, however, that Christ has a 
right to make known his will, in this or in any other 
matter, in just such a way as he pleases ; that the 
incidental recognition, by the Apostles, of infants, 
as properly embraced in the intent of that law, or 
their actual practice of baptizing infants, would be 
an authoritative interpretation of the law, as extend- 
ing its provisions to infants. And we deceive our- 
selves ; we undertake to correct the wisdom of our 
Lord Jesus Christ ; we are guilty of disobedience to 
his authority ; if, in such a case, we allow any no- 
tions or arguments about a '^positive institution" to 
lead us to act in opposition to the will of Christ, no 
less truly made known than if the warrant had ex- 
pressed infants by name. The question is not, Ar^e 
infants expressly named ; but. Has Christ anywhere, 
and in any way, instructed us whether they are to be 
embraced or excluded ? 

On this principle our Baptist brethren themselves 
argue and practice in other matters ; and that, too, 
in matters pertaining to ''positive institutions.'^ In- 
deed, any other principle than this would shut out 
the Lord Jesus Christ from being master and law- 
giver over his own house. Who are we, to prescribe 
to him how he is to make known his will ; and that 
under penalty of having his will rejected, if he does 
not make it known in just the manner that we think 
he ought to employ ? 

The Sabbath is a positive institution ; and God 
has expressly designated the seventh day ; yet all 



INFANT BAPTISM. 151 

Christians in the world, who keep a Sabbath, save a 
very diminutive fraction of one sect, keep the first 
day. Where is the express warrant for this change ? 
There is none. Our Baptist brethren, like ourselves, 
make out a warrant by inference. We find the will 
of Christ made known in the Scriptures, — not ex- 
pressly, but circumstantially. The practice of the 
Apostles teaches the will of Christ, even though it 
be but incidentally mentioned. We admit the va- 
lidity of this warrant by inference. If truly made 
out, it is as clearly the will of Christ as though we 
had found an express warrant in so many words, 
*' Let the Sabbath be changed from the seventh day 
to the first." 

The '^ Seventh Day Baptists" are the only con- 
sistent ones here. They do with the Sabbath as 
they do by Infant Baptism ; they admit nothing but 
an express warrant, in so many words, to bear upon 
either question ; " and," said one of their ministers 
to me, ^' we feel that with our Baptist brethren our 
arguments are unanswerable. They must either 
keep the seventh day as the Sabbath, or else reject 
the very principles on which they reject Infant Bap- 
tism ; they must give up their argument, or keep the 
seventh day, or else determine to act inconsistently 
and absurdly. ^'^ 

His conclusion was manifestly sound. And I 
could not help adding, both you and they must give 
up female communion, too ; for when Christ insti- 
tuted his Supper, there were no female disciples pre- 



152 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

sent, though he had such at the thiie, and he said 
not one word about them in the law of the ordi- 
nance ; nor are they anywhere expressly mentioned 
as partaking in the celebration of the ordinance ; and 
yet the Lord's Supper is purely a '^ positive institu- 
tion," and, say our brethren, you must go by the let- 
ter ; you must not go beyond ; you must not make 
out a warrant by inference ; you must have it 
express. 

I know they prove the propriety of female com- 
munion ; but they prove it by inference, and not 
by any express command or precept. I admit the 
proof to be valid ; but neither our Baptist brethren 
nor anybody else can make it out, without at the 
same time sweeping away the very foundation of 
their argument against Infant Baptism. 

I only insist that the same sort of proof be con- 
sidered equally valid to prove the authority for In- 
fant Baptism. I am willing to have it required that 
that proof be ample. I have no fear for the issue, 
if the condition of receiving Infant Baptism be ten 
times the amount of proof required to substantiate 
the change of the Sabbath, or to make out the Scrip- 
tural warrant for female communion. 

You perceive that I have here made a ^'con- 
cession;" if it be proper to call that a concession, 
which concerns a thing that we never attempted to 
hold, and which is a simple statement of a truth that 
every Pedobaptist in the world was always free to 



INFANT BAPTISM. 153 

acknowledge. The '' concession " is, that the law 
of baptism makes no express mention of infants. 

But having made this concession, I must he al- 
lowed to enter my protest against being understood 
or reported to have conceded that the Scriptures 
furnish no warrant for Infant Baptism. I concede 
no such thing. I maintain the contrary, i^ov will 
it be deemed a matter of wonder to those who know 
what use is sometimes made of concessions, that I 
should deem it necessary to enter this protest. 

Thus, a concession of Dr. Woods is sometimes 
quoted in such a way as to leave those who hear it 
under the impression, that Dr. Woods admits that 
the Scriptures furnish no warrant for Infant Bap- 
tism.* So far as his words are quoted, they are 
quoted correctly from p. 11 of his work on Infant 
Baptism : ^' Whatever may have been the precepts 
of Christ or his apostles to those who enjoyed their 
personal instructions, it is a plain case that there is 
no express precept respecting Infant Baptism in our 
sacred writings.'' 

Here the matter is left. The quotation is truth 
as far as it goes ; but what is essential to the truth 
is omitted, and the omission causes Dr. Woods to be 
understood as giving up all claim of a Scriptural 
warrant for Infant Baptism ; whereas, in truth, Dr. 
Woods gives his testimony directly to the contrary. 

^ The writer has himself heard Dr. Woods quoted in this 
manner before a full congregation. 



154 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

His ''concession'' refers only to an ''express pre- 
cept." His work was written for the very purpose 
of proving the Scriptural warrant for Infant Baptism. 
He is very explicit (p. 42), to take his position in 
the most formal words, and he prints them in italics 
that this position may be well noted and understood ; 
and these are his words : 

'' But I shall now proceed to argue the point from 
the INSPIRED RECORDS just as they are. My position 
is, that the Scriptures of the New Testament, under- 
stood according to the just rules of inter pi^etation, 

IMPLY THAT THE CHILDREN OF BELIEVERS ARE TO BE 
BAPTIZED.'' 

In the same manner, in a tract publisJied by the 
'' General Baptist Tract Society," entitled, '' The 
Scripture Guide to Baptism, by Pengilly," and 
widely circulated both here and elsewhere, Richard 
Baxter is introduced as speaking in the strongest 
terms against Infant Baptism. One long quotation 
from his writings introduced for this purpose, ends 
with these words: '' I profess my conscience is fully 
satisfied from this text, that it is one sort of faith, 
even saving, that must go before baptism." The 
last words are printed in capitals. Jewett, in his 
work on Baptism, has introduced the same quotation 
for the same purpose, to make Richard Baxter bear 
his witness against Infant Baptism. 

And again, ^^The Scripture Guide to Baptism, by 
Pengilly,^^ (p. 44), after asserting in italics, ^'thaf we 
have noivhere found a single place or passage that 



INFANT BAPTISM. 155 

describes, records, or implies the baptism of any in- 
fants ;^^ says, ''the reader will not suppose this a 
hasty conclusion when he hears the following Pedo- 
baptists.^' Under this, he again quotes Baxter thus: 
'' I conclude that all examples of baptism in Scrip- 
ture do mention only the administration of it to the 
professors of saving faith; and the precepts give us 
no other direction. And I provoke Mr. Blake, as 
far as is seemly for me to do, to name one precept 
or example for any other, and make it good if he 
can." 

Here is a point in question, and witnesses are 
called. Richard Baxter is brought upon the stand. 
Mr, Baxter, Is Infant Baptism right according to 
the word of God ? An answer is put into his mouth, 
taken from his works, in which he is reasoning — not 
concerning infants — but concerning adults ; and 
showing that " it is one sort of faith, even saving '^ 
(and not simply the intellectual belief of an uncon- 
verted man), ''that must go before baptism.'' And 
so, Richard Baxter is by this process made to bear 
witness against Infant Baptism ! 

But, Mr. Baxter, you were a Pedobaptist ; did you 
not baptize children, and so teach and exhort in the 
house of God ? yes, and dearly prized the ordi- 
nance, and would not have given it up sooner than 
I would have given up my life. But, Mr. Baxter, 
what is this then that they say of you ? Your name 
is spread abroad in tracts upon tracts, and in books 
upon books, and goes out to the four winds of heaven ; 



156 LAW OF BAPTISM, 

and your own strong language is printed in the bold- 
est relief, as though the author of the " Saint^s Rest," 
and of the " Call to the Unconverted," had borne his 
testimony most decidedly against Infant Baptism ! 
Are you so opposed, Mr. Baxter? Is this witness 
true of you ? What say you of Infants, Mr. Baxter ? 
Do you cut these off from the Church of Grod ? 

To be so quoted is well nigh enough to call the 
dead ''Saint" from his ''Rest." He answers on 
this point, and it is Baxter's own strong emotion and 
burning words that speak: " God," says Mr. Baxter, 
" God had never a church on earth, of which 

INFANTS were NOT INFANT MEMBERS, SINCE THERE 
were INFANTS IN THE WORLD."* 



■^ Baxter's Comment, on Matt, xxyiii. 19 (in Gray on the 
Authority for Infant Baptism, Halifax, 1837, p. 200). 

The hottest controversy which Mr. Baxter ever had ^ya9 
with the Baptists. A Mr. Tombes had written a book against 
Infant Baptism, and thought that Baxter was "the chief 
hinder er" of its success: "Though," says Mr. Baxter, "I 
never meddled with that point." " He had," says Baxter, 
" so high a conceit of his writings that he thought them un- 
answerable, and that none could deal with them in that 
way." "At last, somehow, he urged me to give my judg- 
ment of them ; when I let him know they did not satisfy me 
to be of his mind, but went no further with him." " But he 
unavoidably contrived to bring me into the controversy 
which I shunned." In the end Baxter agreed to hold a pub- 
lic discussion in Mr. Tombes' church. Jan. 1, 1649. "This 
dispute," says Baxter, "satisfied all my own people, and the 
country that came in, and Mr. Tombes' own townsmen, ex- 



INFANT BAPTISM. 15t 

But enough of these ''concessions." Enough of 
these clouds of quotations from Pedobaptist writers 
to make them say what, quoted in such connections 
and for such purposes, is heaven-wide from the faith 
in which they lived and in which they died. What 
is done to Woods and to Baxter is done to Calvin, 
and to a host of others. These men went to the 
word of God for their doctrine. Whatever would 
not stand by that rule, they scrupulously rejected 
with loathing and abhorrence, ''hating even the 
garment spotted by the flesh." They taught and 
practiced sprinkling and pouring for baptism ; they 
taught and practiced the baptism of infants ; for the 
warrant of both they went to the word of God. And 

cept about twenty whom he had perverted, who gathered 
into his church ; which never increased to above twenty-two 
that I could learn." 

Not long after, Baxter published his work, entitled, " Plain 
Scripture Proof of Infants' Church Membership and Bap- 
tism." This work passed through several editions. "The 
book," says Baxter, '' God blessed with unexpected success 
to stop abundance from turning Anabaptists, and reclaiming 
many." 

Nineteen years after, Baxter published another work, 
entitled, "More Proofs of Infant Church Membership, 
AND consequently THEIR RiGHTS TO Baptism." This book is 
divided into three parts, which contain, he tells us, "The 
plain proof of God's statute or covenant for Infants church 
membership from the creation, and the continuance of it till 
rhe institution of Baptism ; with the defence of that proof 
against the frivolous exceptions of Mr. Tombes." — (Ormes* 
Life and Times of Baxter, Vol. ii., p. 252.) 
14 



158 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

now, the influence of their names and the weight of 
their piety is attempted to be laid into the scale 
against the doctrines which they practiced and taught, 
as the truth and the ordinances of God. Is this deal- 
ing kindly and truly with the dead ? Is this dealing 
kindly and righteously with the truth ? 

In the same manner, in this work by Pengilly, 
published by the Baptist General Tract Society as 
the ''Scripture Guide to Baptism," the names of 
such men as Doddridge, Baxter, Erskine, Matthew 
Henry, Calvin, Saurin, Guyse, Charnock, are arrayed 
as if against us in the particulars in which we differ 
from our Baptist brethren. Take the names from 
the book and the quotations annexed to them, and 
the book is left a mere lifeless carcase. But hear 
them fully, hear them truly, and do they stand 
against us ? Could they come up from the dead into 
the midst of this community, to a man they would 
wend their way to these walls for the truth and 
order which they held as established by the word 
of God. To a man they would lift up their voices 
for the ordinances which now their names are made 
to impugn. They would cry out upon the injustice 
done to their memories and to the truth, by these 
attempts to cast the weight of their names against 
what they taught and practiced, as the truth and 
the ordinances of God. 

And others, whose names are quoted in this tract 
by Pengilly, though they might not in all^ respects 
agree with us, would nevertheless give us their 



INFANT BAPTISM. 159 

united voice on the matter now in question. The 
Methodists, Whitefield and Wesley ; the Episcopal, 
Scott ; the Bishops of the Church of England, Til- 
lotson, Burnet, and Taylor, and Archbishop Seeker, 
would cry out upon the injustice done to their names 
in arraying them, as if witnesses, against the truth 
and the ordinances which they held as most assuredly 
the truth and the ordinances of Grod. 

But turn from the authority of names to the foun- 
dations on which these men rested their faith. '' To 
the law, and to the testimony." 

In our examination of the circumstances which 
bear upon the interpretation of the Law of Baptism, 
it will appear : 

I. That the Abrahamic and the Christian Church 
are one and the same ; built on the same covenant ; 
saved with the same faith; and considered in the 
word of God as one and the same Church. 

II. That circumcision and baptism are alike seals 
of the same covenant, and signs of the same thing. 

III. That the childi^en of believers, as they were 
connected ivith the Abrahamic Church, are recognized 
in the New Testament as sustaining the same rela- 
tion to the Christian Church. 

If these things can be proved by the certain war- 
rant of the word of God, it will follow that the law 
of Baptism in the Christian Church is to be interpre- 
ted as extending to the children of believing parents. 
It would seem useless to deny the sign to them who 
have the thing ; and as the seal was once expressly 



160 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

extended to children, if they are to be excepted af- 
terwards, in the application of another sign, of the 
same meaning, intent and use, the exception must 
be specified, otherwise the sign follows with the 
thing. God having given his charter, and sealed it 
to a specified class of persons, afterwards while he 
expressly continues the charter, but changes the 
form of the seal, the seal in that changed form re- 
mains of course. Without an express warrant from 
God, man may not take away the charter, or refuse 
the seal. 

If, in addition to this, we find : 

lY. Grounds for concluding that the Apostles ap- 
plied the sign ; and certain history to show^ that the 
vvhole church received the practice, as they believed, 
from the Apostles ; and so practised, uniformly, all 
over the world, with not a man to raise his voice 
against the divine authority of the practice for more 
than thirty generations after Christ; I think we may 
rest the question as settled. It is not only lawful, 
but a correct and authorized interpretation of the 
law of the institution requires believing parents to 
cause their infant children to be baptized. 

This is the outline of the argument which I shall 
pursue. And now to the proof 

I. The Ahrahamic and the Ghristian' Church are 
one and the same. 

The Lord appeared to Abraham (Gen. xii. 1-3), 
and promised that in him should '' all the families of 
the earth be blessed.'' In Gen. xvii. 1-14, God again 



INFANT BAPTISM. 161 

promised that Abraham should be ''the father of 
many nations ;" and that he would be '' a God to 
him and to his seed after him." At the same time 
God gave him the ordinance of circumcision for 
himself and for his seed. 

Here was the commencement of the polity of the 
peculiar people of God intended by the term Church ; 
and distinguished (Rom. iii. 2) as having entrusted 
to them '' the oracles of God •/' and (Rom. ix. 5) as 
those to whom '^ pertain the adoption, and the cove- 
nants, and the service of God, and the promises ;" 
and declared (1 Tim. iii. 15) to be '' the house of 
God ;" " the church of the living God ;" " the pillar 
and ground of the truth." 

On account of this covenant, God is called the 
'* God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob ;" 
rather than the God of Enoch, or of ^NToah, or of 
Moses, or of David. He is called their God in re- 
lation to this covenant; as in numberless instances, 
so particularly in 2 Cor. vi. 16, as God hath said, " I 
will dwell in them and walk in them ; and I will be 
their God, and they shall be my people ;" i. e., their 
God, as he is not the God of other men ; and they 
his people, as other men are not his people. So in 
Heb. xi. 16, ''Wherefore God is not ashamed to be 
called Their God." 

This people of God, as an external visible polity, 

is called " Israel" or the " Church ;" as in Acts vii. 

38, the descendants of Jacob are called " the Church 

in the wilderness ;" just as the visible polity of Christ's 

14^ 



162 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

people are called '' the Church*/' as in 1 Cor. xii. 28, 
'' And God hath set some in the Church ; first apos- 
tles; secondarily prophets; thirdly teachers,'' etc. 
Here the word Church does not mean simply an '^ as- 
sembly;" for it is no particular assembly that is here 
spoken of, but Christ's visible people everywhere; 
his Church in the widest sense. 

But the visible Church is never made up exclu- 
sively of those who shall be saved; and so the terms 
^' Israel" and " Church" are used ordinarily to desig- 
nate the body of those who are apparently his ; to 
wit, the visible polity made up of good and bad. 
Again, they are sometimes used to denote particu- 
larly those only who shall be the heirs of salvation. 
Thus, the first term is used in both senses in the 
following passage, Rom. ix. 6, '' For they are not all 
Israel which are of Israel." And the ''kingdom of 
God^' (the visible Church) is represented, Matt. xiii. 
4:1, as a ''net cast into the sea, which gathered of 
every kind ;" though cast only for the proper kinds. 
When full and drawn to the shore, the good are ga- 
thered in vessels ; the bad are thrown away. 

Now the covenant on which the Abraham ic Church 
was founded, was not a covenant of works, but of 
grace ; and its promise was not simply of the land 
of Canaan, but of Heaven. Thus, Hom. iv. 13, 
" For the promise that he should be heir of the 
world, was not to Abraham or to his seed through 
the law, but through the righteousness of faith." 
And (ver. 12) "He received the sign of circumcision, 



INFANT BAPTISM. 163 

a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had, 
being yet uncircumcised.'' 

It has been strenuously asserted that the covenant 
was one of temporal promises only, and circumcision 
given as a mere national badge (and indeed it is ne- 
cessary for those who reject Infant Baptism to say 
something of the kind). But the word of God 
teaches us otherwise. " Abraham was justified by 
faith." Rom. iv. 13, " The promise was . . . through 
the righteousness of faith ;" and circumcision was 
" a seal of the righteousness of faith ;" to wit, of the 
^^ faith by which men must be justified.'' So we are 
taught expressly (Heb. xi.) that Abraham, and Isaac, 
and Jacob, and Sara, and '' multitudes" of their de- 
scendants, as the sand which is by the sea shore in- 
numerable, '' died in the faith ;" not simply in faith 
of the promise of Canaan, but of Heaven. Thus, 
Heb. xi. 13, 15, " And confessed that they were 
strangers and pilgrims on the earth," — ^'but now 
they desire a better country, that is a Heavenly :" 
wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their 
God ; '' for he hath prepared for them a city." What 
''city," but Heaven? 

And since there is no other name than Christ 
whereby man must be saved, Acts iv. 12, since 
there is *' one God and one mediator between God 
and man," 1 Tim. ii. 5, these men believed on Christ. 
This we are expressly taught. Thus, ''Abraham 
rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad." 
So of all the ancient Israelites who were saved it is 



164 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

expressly said, 1 Cor. x. 2-4, ''And were all baptized 
unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea ; and did all 
eat of the same spiritual meat; and did all drink of 
the same spiritual drink : for they drank of that spir- 
itual rock that followed them; and that rock was 
Christ." 

Here pause a moment. Was not that the true 
Church, whose true members 

Believed on Christ ; 

Sought a Heavenly country ; 

Were justified by faith ; 

Of whom the world was not worthy ; 

For whom God prepared a city ; 

And who are now set down in the kingdom of 
God? 

In what respect does the Church of Christ differ 
from this, in the articles which may well be judged 
the Articles of the true Church of God ? 

''But the Jewish polity is passed away.'' True. 
But the Abrahamic Church is quite a different thing 
from the Jewish polity. Thus, Gal. iii. IT, "And 
this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed be- 
fore of God in Christ, the law, which was four hun- 
dred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it 
should make the promise of none effect." And if 
the giving of the law did not annul the covenant, 
certainly the covenant is not annulled by the remov- 
ing of the ceremonial law. And this is the very thing 
for which Paul is arguing ; and which the Holy 
Ghost, who inspired him, teaches through his argu- 



INFANT BAPTISM. 165 

ments — that the covenant and its blessings remain, 
and come upon the Gentiles, as Paul says in express 
words (v. 11), " That the blessing of Abraham might 
come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ." 

Now " Circumcision was not of Moses but of the 
fathers," John vii. 22. It was the seal of a cove- 
nant which existed before the law ; and neither the 
giving of the law, nor the removal of it, affected 
either the covenant or the seal. The covenant re- 
maining, the seal remained, of course, unless spe- 
cially abrogated. Another form of the seal was in- 
deed adopted under Christ, as another day was 
adopted for the Sabbath, instead of the seventh. 

The seal being changed, circumcision was inter- 
dicted (Acts XV.), but this was especially on the 
ground that those who enjoined circumcision, taught 
that it was neeedful to circumcise them and ''to 
command them to keep the law of Moses :'^ and to 
circumcise as well as baptize. The circumcision, 
under these circumstances, was enjoined and re- 
ceived under the notion of being justified by the 
law ; and became in its practical effect a sign by jus- 
tification by the law. Under these circumstances, 
the apostles, divinely instructed, did with circumci- 
sion what Hezekiah did with '"the brazen serpent 
that Moses had made," 2 Kings xviii. 14. It must 
no longer be tolerated when it became the means of 
sin and ruin. Paul also (Gal. v.) spoke against cir- 
cumcision on the ground that they who practiced it, 
did it under the notion of attaining justification by 



166 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

the works of the law. To keep the seventh day, 
under the notion of being justified by the law, would 
put one equally off from the ground of grace. He 
would be '^ fallen from grace;'' and ''Christ should 
profit him nothing." It was on this ground that 
Paul interdicted circumcision, and on this only ; for 
Paul himself (Acts xvi. 3), when he w^ould have 
Timothy go forth with him, " took him and circum- 
cised him, because of the Jews which w^ere in those 
quarters.'' 

So far, then, the covenant with its seal remain 
unimpaired by the giving and the removing of the 
law. 

''Wherefore, then, serveththe law? It was added 
because of transgressions, till the seed should come, 
to whom the promise was made," Gal. iii. 19. The 
inference is inevitable ; the law passes away when 
Christ comes, since it was only added to continue 
"till" that time. The promise and the covenant re- 
main to be fulfilled ; to wit, the promise referred to 
in these words. Gal. iii. 8, "And the Scripture, fore- 
seeing that God would justify the heathen through 
faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, say- 
ing. In thee shall all the families of the earth be 
blessed." 

If now WE were to add to this, " So, then, modern 
believers are built upon the foundation of the Abra- 
hamic covenant," the reasoning might be questioned. 
But the word of God has come to such a conclusion, 
and it ought to seem to be no longer a matter to be 



INFANT BAPTISM. 167 

questioned. " So, then," says the apostle, " they 
which be of faith, are hlessed with faithful Abra- 
ham." " Know ye not, that they which are of faith, 
the same are the children of Abraham," Gal. iii. 7. 
Why are they not called the children of Enoch, or 
of ISToah, or of Elijah, or of Moses ? These men 
had faith, and were justified by faith. If simply to 
be justified by faith be the matter in which we are 
^'Abraham's seed," can any mortal tell why we 
might not as well be called the seed of Enoch, or of 
Noah, or of Moses, or of Elijah ? Plainly the cove- 
nant and its promises are the reason why we are 
Abraham's seed : and Paul accordingly reasons on 
the ground of the covenant and the promise. But 
hear his conclusion. Gal. iii. 29, ''And if ye be 
Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs ac- 
cording to the promise." 

I might rest the argument here ; but the word of 
God is not content to leave the matter so. It would 
make it so plain, "that he may run who readeth it." 
Thus, the prophets uniformly represent the kingdom 
of Zion, not as a new Church, but as Israel enlarged 
by the " bringing in" of the Gentiles. To say all 
that might be said in proof of this would be to re- 
peat nearly all the passages in the prophets which 
speak of the kingdom of Christ. For your satisfac- 
tion I refer to chap. Ix. of Isaiah, and onward through 
chap. Ixv. Here is no casting away of God's people, 
and the erection of an entire new polity. It is Zion ; 
it is Jerusalem that rises and shines ; her light being 



168 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

come, and the glory of the Lord being risen upon 
her. The Gentiles come to her light, and kings 
to the brightness of her rising : '' all they gather 
themselves and come to thee/' These prophecies 
represent the Church of Jesus Christ in her course 
to universal empire over the earth : but it is still the 
ancient Zion and the ancient Jerusalem. It is still 
the covenant people of God, at a period when the 
promise is made sure to all the seed ; '' not to that 
only which is of the law, but that which is of faith ;" 
to the Gentiles, upon whom the blessing of Abraham 
comes in the latter day. 

The apostles are not less distinct in this matter 
than the prophets. Thus, Paul, Rom. xi. 25, "Blind- 
ness in part is happened unto Israel until the fulness 
of the Gentiles be come in." (''In?" Into what ? 
To a house that is thrown down and cast away ?) 
And more expressly in Eph. ii. 12-22, ''Wherefore 
remember that ye, being in times past Gentiles in 
the flesh," — " that at that time ye were without 
Christ, being aliens from the Commonwealth of 
Israel, and strangers from the covenant of promise, 
are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is 
our peace, who hath made both one, having broken 
down the middle wall of partition." " Now there- 
fore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but 
fellow citizens with the saints, and of the house- 
hold of God ; and are built upon the foundation of 
the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being 
the chief corner-stone." 



INFANT BAPTISM. 169 

I know there are those to whose scheme it is de- 
struction, to consider the Abrahamic covenant as 
pertaining at all to us, or the Abrahamic and the 
Christian Church one and the same; and hence, 
when we mention these things, they profess that it 
is all unintelligible, and throw them by contemptu- 
ously as an idle and pernicious figment. But it 
seems to me, that we cannot throw these things 
away without throwing away the word of God. 
But as if the Scriptures had anticipated what objec- 
tions would be raised, they go on, as though deter- 
mined to put the matter beyond a question, if the 
clearest representations of holy writ can put any 
thing beyond question. 

Thus, in Rom. xi., ^' God hath not cast away his 
people" whom he foreknew, — '^ there is a remnant," 
— 'nhe rest are blinded." ''And if some of the 
branches be broken off" (mark ! is the trunk de- 
stroyed when some of the branches are broken off?) 
" and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in 
among them" (graffed into nothing ? and among no- 
thing ?) " and with them partakest of the root and 
fatness of the olive tree?" (Tell me, ye who are 
familiar with the process of engrafting, is the trunk 
torn up and cast away, when the scion is graffed in 
among its green branches, and with them partakes 
of its root and fatness ?) '' Boast not against the 
branches ; but if thou boast, thou bearest not the 
root, but the root thee." 

Can anything more strikingly and certainly assert 
15 



110 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

that the old trunk, the Abrahamic Church, is not 
thrown aside, but that the Christian Church draws 
its support and sustenance from the original and 
still living root, the covenant of promise, which se- 
cures us Christ ; which secures us all the mercy that 
Grod has covenanted, or which comes to us through 
his Son ? Could a voice from heaven, louder than 
seven thunders, and distinct as that which shall call 
the world to judgment, make this matter more plain ? 

One more passage of holy writ, and I have done 
on this point. The passage is in Rom. iv. 16, It. 
'^ Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; 
to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed ; 
not to that only which is of the law, but to that 
also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the 
father of us all ; as it is written, I have made thee a 
father of many nations.^' 

Here I rest under the first point, believing the 
proof to be plain and incontrovertible — resting on 
the sure authority of the word of God; that the 
Abrahamic and the Christian Church are one and 
the same ; built upon the same covenant ; saved 
with the same faith ; considered in the word of God 
as one and the same Church. 

I proceed to the second point. 

II. Gircumcision and baptism are alike the seal 
of the same covenant^ and the sign of the same thing. 

God appointed circumcision the seal of his cove- 
nant with Abraham in these words. Gen. xvii. 10 : 
'* This is my covenant, which ye shall keep between 



INFANT BAPTISM. HI 

me and you, and thy seed after thee ; Every man 
child shall be circumcised." Here circumcision is 
called the ''covenant/' by the common figure of 
placing the sign for the thing. Every one under- 
stands that literally circumcision is not the covenant, 
but the token^ or sign^ or seal of the covenant. That 
it is such a '' sign" and '' seal" — and what it signi- 
fies we are not left to conjecture. 

Paul says, Rom. iv. 11, ''He" (Abraham) "re- 
ceived the sign of circumcision, a seal of the right- 
eousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncir- 
cumcised." A "sign!" a "seal!" of the righteous- 
ness of faith ! Is not this " righteousness of faith" 
the very thing which Paul urges as the ground by 
which the sinner is justified, and has peace with God 
through our Lord Jesus Christ ; of which "justifica- 
tion" he cites Abraham as an illustrious example ? 
Of this " faith" Abraham received circumcision as 
the " seal." And what was the import of the seal? 
The renewal of the heart and of the spirit. This 
was the true circumcision, of which the outward 
circumcision was given as the sign, Rom. ii. 29: 
" Circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and 
not in the letter." That is, the real thing denoted 
by the sign, circumcision — the truly being what cir- 
cumcision should be the sign of being — is to be 
cleansed in heart. Of this it is the sign. Of the 
remission of sin and of the acceptance of the soul 
through the righteousness of faith it is the " seal.'' 

Now baptism is the seal and sign of the same 



1T2 LAW OF BAPTI8M. 

things. Thus, Acts xxii. 16, ''Arise and be bap- 
tized, and wash away thy sms.^^ The baptism does 
not literally *' wash away sins;'^ but it is the sign, 
or token, or seal, of the washing away of sins ; and 
of acceptance with God, in justification through the 
righteousness of faith. The real washing aw^ay of 
sins is accpmplished with a bloody baptism — by the 
" sprinkling of the blood of Christ :" of this, baptism 
is the seal, in precisely the same manner as circum- 
cision was the seal of the righteousness of faith ; 
and the ''sprinkling of blood is shadowed forth by 
the sprinkling of water." 

And what is the import of this seal ? What but 
the washing of the heart, and the inward cleansing 
by the Holy Spirit, which is called the " baptism of 
the Spirit?'' As the circumcision of the heart was 
the work of the Holy Spirit, so here the baptism (or 
cleansing) of the heart, which is the work of the 
Hoty Spirit, is called ^'the loashing of regenera- 
tion, and the reneicing of the Holy Ghost, ^^ and this 
is shadowed forth by the "washing of water," or 
baptism : as it is said in Tit. iii. 5, " Christ loved 
the church, and gave himself for it, that he might 
sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by 
the word." 

We have, then, baptism and circumcision; each 
a " sign,^^ each a " seal,^^ and each as a sign and as a 
seal signifying precisely the same thing. 

But the word of God goes further, and expressly 
calls baptism the circumcision of Christ (or what is 



INFANT BAPTISM. 1T3 

its precise equivalent, Christian circumcision). Thus, 
Col. ii. 11, 12, ''In whom ye are circumcised, with 
the circumcision made without hands." Here is the 
real circumcision, the inward '' circumcision of the 
heart and of the Spirit:" '' the washing of regenera- 
tion, the renewing of the Holy Ghost" — ''in putting 
off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circum- 
cision of Christ: buried with him in baptism.'*^ 
Here is the outward circumcision of Christ (the sign 
of the inward) — baptism. Again, Phil. iii. 3, Chris- 
tians are called "the circumcision," in allusion to 
their having wrought in them the thing signified by 
circumcision, and of which baptism under the dis- 
pensation of Christ is the outward sign. "For we 
are the circumcision, which worship God in the 
spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no con- 
fidence in the flesh." 

The Abrahamic Church had a " seal" of the 
righteousness of faith. " The Christian Church is 
the same ; has the Christian Church a seal of the 
righteousness of faith ? If the Scriptures may be 
trusted, it has : baptism signifying the same thing 
as circumcision, and, in so many words, called the 
circumcision of Christ." 

It is manifest, therefore, that baptism is substi- 
tuted for circumcision : 

It is a seal of the same covenant ; 

Ordained for the same church; 

It means the same thing; 

It is employed for the same use; 
15* 



174 law of baptism. 

While circumcision is passed away. 

Here is the reality of substitution. If any dis- 
like the word substitution, I care not to dispute for 
the word. Baptism is a sign, and but a sign ; used 
as a seal ; holding the same place ; having the same 
meaning ; fulfilling the same use ; under the same 
covenant; and in the same Church: while circum- 
cision is passed aw^ay. Here, then, is the reality 
of substitution. If any dislike the word, let the 
word be dropped : the reality remains, based upon 
the word of God. Baptism is now, what circum- 
cision was once — a seal of the righteousness of 
faith, and of God's promise to be the God of such, 
and of their seed after them. Christianity has no 
other sign or seal of the righteousness of faith.* 

Now what would those, who received the com- 
mand to apply this new seal, understand with re- 
gard to the subjects to Avhom it was to be applied ? 
They well understood the Abrahamic and the Chris- 
tian Church to be one and the same : built on the 
same covenant, saved with the same faith, and re- 



* It has been objected that circumcision was applied only 
to males. Might not this be among the reasons for a change 
of the seal ? A distinction was made between male and fe- 
male under the ^losaic dispensation, as between Jew and 
Greek, bond and free; but under Christ this distinction w^as 
abolished: " There is neither Jew nor Greek ; there is nei- 
ther bond nor free; there is neither male nor female." 
Hence — the seal remaining — there was a necessity for chang- 
ing its form. 



INFANT BAPTISM. 175 

garded in the word of God as one and the same 
Church. Circumcision, the seal of the righteous- 
ness of faith, was by divine command, applied to 
children. When a Gentile was proselyted, the same 
seal was applied to him and to his children. In 
every covenant and promise of God, their children 
had been included: and this fact must have deeply 
impressed their minds, that everywhere throughout 
the law and the prophets, God was still accustomed 
to join in the same polity the parents and the chil- 
dren. To exclude the children is a strange thing, 
especially from a seal of the same covenant, which 
still retained in its promises the blessings promised 
to children. Here is a new seal of the same cove- 
nant — the same covenant, only enlarged, extending 
the blessing of Abraham to the Gentiles through 
faith. 

Does the ratification and the enlargement of the 
covenant cut off the children, while nothing is re- 
voked and nothing changed save the form of the 
seal ? Here is a new form of the seal, but it has 
the same signification. The command is — '' Go 
teach" (make disciples of) "■ all nations, baptizing 
them." Had the command been — go preach to the 
Gentiles — the "' Gospel" which was before preached 
to Abraham, Gal. iii. 8 — circumcising them; ''he 
that belie veth" and is circumcised '' shall be saved," 
there could be no possibility of doubting that the 
infants of believing parents are to be included. But 
how is the case altered when they are to apply ano- 



176 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

ther sign of the same design and signification ? Is 
the case altered at all ? Will they not understand 
it as referring to the same subjects ? So they must 
naturally understand it : such would be its inevita- 
ble interpretation, unless there were an express ex- 
ception of such infants in the command. Without 
some warrant, it is, methinks, impossible that the 
disciples would presume to take away from parents 
and children the privileges granted to them by the 
charter of Jehovah. These of necessity stand till 
Jehovah himself takes them away. The chartered 
privileges remaining to them, the seal of that char- 
ter, as it was once theirs, would remain, even though 
the form of the seal be changed. 

This has been illustrated by a homely similitude, 
and yet a similitude so much in point that I will 
copy it. 

A man orders his servants to mark the sheep of 
his flock with a bloody sign, and is careful to add, 
see that you apply this sign to all the lambs also. 
Afterwards, he sees fit to dispense with the bloody 
sign made with a knife in the flesh, and ordains that 
his servants mark his sheep with paint; but he says 
nothing about the lambs. Will those servants, be- 
cause the marking is a '^ positive institution," argue 
that the lambs are no longer to be marked? As 
they buy more sheep with lambs, will they mark the 
sheep, but say they have no warrant for marking 
the lambs ? The contrary. And so, from the very 
circumstances of the case, the disciples of Christ, 



INFANT BAPTISM. 177 

understanding the design and import of baptism, 
and having been previously accustomed to extend 
another sign, of the same import and use, to children, 
would naturally interpret the command to baptize, 
as implying the baptism of infants. 

Had it been objected, that men are to believe and 
be baptized ; and that even '^ saving faith" is to go 
before baptism in the case of adults, they would still 
remember that infants could no more believe in 
Abraham's day than they can now ; and yet, at 
God's command, they received '' circumcision, a seal 
of the righteousness of faith ;" and that the objec- 
tion would have had precisely the same force against 
circumcision then, that it has against baptism now. 
They would have remembered, moreover, that if the 
want of a capacity for ^' believing" should hinder 
baptism, the same reason would prove that they 
cannot be saved : since the Gospel says, ^' He that 
believeth and is baptized,' shall be saved ;" '' He 
that believeth not shall be damned;" and infants 
cannot believe. But a reasoning which proves too 
much, and proves what is false, proves nothing at 
all, and the objection falls to the ground. 

Another circumstance would have had weight 
upon their minds in all questions touching the rela- 
tions of children under the Gospel dispensation. 
Some parents once brought little children (infants, 
says Luke xviii. 15) to Christ, that he should lay his 
hands on them and bless them. His disciples for- 
bade them. They understood that Christ's kingdom 



178 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

was to rest upon faith in the soul, and upon the in- 
telligent obedience of men to his precepts ; but how 
could children have this faith or this knowledge? 
They appear to have come to the same conclusion 
concerning bringing little children to Christ that he 
might touch them, that many in these days arrive at 
concerning the baptism of little children ; — '^ what 
good can it do to an unconscious babe ?" At all 
events, they forbade these parents to bring their in- 
fants to Christ for this purpose. But Christ rebuked 
them ; he called the little children to him ; he took 
them in his arms ; he blessed them ; he said, '' Suf- 
fer little children to come unto me, and forbid them 
not: for of such is the kingdom of Heaven." He 
meant by the kingdom of Heaven, either his earthly 
Church or his heavenly ; it matters not which for the 
argument. If the heavenly Church is, in part, made 
up of such, then this was a sufficient reason for 
Christ why he should take them in his arms and 
bless them, and rebuke those who would forbid them 
to be brought to him. It is the very reason that he 
alleged, and he himself drew these conclusions from 
the reason. What an argument for bringing little 
children to Christ now — that he may seal them as his 
own ; and that visibly as he did when he took them 
in his arms ! But if by '' Kingdom of Heaven" he 
meant his '' earthly Church," then the argument 
is at an end : they are to be baptized on this express 
warrant. 
Those who wish to prevent this passage from 



INFANT BAPTISM. 179 

bearing on the question at issue say, that by the 
words " of such," our Lord meant — not of such in- 
fants, but of such '' simple-hearted and humble per- 
sons" is the kingdom of heaven. This would be a 
good reason why '' simple-hearted and humble per- 
sons" should not be forbidden to come to Christ; 
but the fact that " simple-hearted and humble" 
adults belong to the kingdom of God, is no reason 
why Christ should take infants in his arms and bless 
them. 

It is said, we forget that Jesus did not baptize 
them. No, we do not forget that ''Jesus himself 
baptized not — but his disciples." It is not neces- 
sary for us to assert or to suppose that these infants 
were baptized at all. Christ's disciples were sent 
at first to preach, not a Redemption completed, but 
to preach, saying, '' The kingdom of heaven is at 
hand.''^ Their final commission was after the resur- 
rection of our Lord ; and at that time he instituted 
his baptism, which appears to be essentially different 
from that practiced before. The disciples of Christ 
baptized newly made disciples before this, but it 
seems to have been John's '' baptism of repentance," 
Acts xix. 4, and not the baptism instituted by Christ 
as the new seal of his covenant. 

Grant it, if our brethren please, that these infants 
were not baptized.'^ This conduct of Christ, and 

^ Though as much is said of their baptism as there is of 
the baptism of any particular adults from this time forward 



180 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

this rebuke which he administered to those who 
would forbid infants, would at least teach his disci- 
ples no more to reject infants from the blessings of 
the Christian religion, under the notion that infants 
cannot believe. It would teach them no more to 
forbid parents to bring them to Christ for his bless- 
ing. It would teach them to be cautious how they 
forbade infants from the privileges which God had 
chartered to them in his covenant. It was designed 
to teach them how Christ regarded infants ; and the 
remembrance of this would necessarily bear upon 
the interpretation which they would give with regard 
to the application of the new seal, whether to apply 
it to infants or not. 

But how they did in fact interpret the law, I come 
now to show under the third head. 

III. That the children of 'believers, as they were 
connected with the Abrahamic Church, are recog- 
nized in the Neiv Testament as sustaining the same 
relation to the Christian Church. 

"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the 
wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the 
husband, else were your children unclean, but now 
are they holy." 1 Cor. vii. 14. Of course this can- 
not mean that the children are spiritually holy, 
simply because one of the parents is a believer. 

during the life of Christ, or indeed during the previous part 
of his ministry, no particular cases are mentioned. Silence 
in one case proves as much as in another. 



INFANT BAPTISM. 181 

The word '^holy" here is the opposite of "unclean/' 
with which it is contrasted. And the word unclean 
(the same in the original language as well as ours) 
is used in Acts x. 14, 15, 28, and Acts xi. 3, 8, 9, in 
a way which fully explains the use of it here. Peter 
was to be prepared to go and instruct and baptize 
Cornelius, a Gentile. A vision was given him, of a 
great sheet, knit at the four corners, wherein were 
all manner of four-footed beasts, and creeping things, 
and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to 
him, saying, " Rise, Peter, kill and eat.'' But Peter 
said, '' Not so. Lord, for 1 have never eaten anything 
that is common or unclean.^^ And the voice spoke to 
him again: ''What God hath cleansed that call not 
thou common." So Peter answered the messenger 
of Cornelius, '' God hath showed me that I should 
not call any man common or unclean.^^ But for going 
to Cornelius, a Gentile, they that were of the circum- 
cision contended with him (as Peter might have 
done with another man, had he not been better in- 
structed by the vision) — saying, ''thou wentest in to 
men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them." Then 
Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and 
told how the voice answered from heaven, saying, 
" What God hath cleansed, that call not thou com- 
mon." The point is this: to the Israelites the Gen- 
tiles had been considered as unclean, out of the pale 
of their society, and debarred from the covenant and 
worship of the people of God : or, as Paul expresses 
16 



182 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

it, Eph. ii. 12-22, '' Gentiles in the flesh — strangers 
from the covenant of promise.'' 

With this explanation turn to the passage under 
consideration — '' else were your children unclean''^ — 
cut off from the commonwealth of Christ's visible 
Church, and debarred from the seal of the cove- 
nant, as Pagans ; or, as says Matthew Henry, 
'' They would be heathen, out of the pale of the 
Church and covenant of God." The Apostle bases 
his argument upon a fact which he assumes as well 
known and universally recognized in practice ; that 
the children of believing parents are so far a '' Holy 
seed," — and in that sense ''holy" (as opposed to 
'* unclean"), — that they are entitled to the covenant 
privileges belonging to the '-household" of faith. 
Doddridge says (and with him agree the great mass 
of the most distinguished commentators, as well as 
the great mass of the Christian world) — " On the 
maturest and the most impartial consideration of 
this text, I must refer it to Infant Baptism." 

Indeed, this is the natural interpretation of the 
passage, and the most rigid scrutiny of the use of 
the words in the original language not only bears 
out this interpretation, but condemns every other 
that has been advanced. And so surely does this 
natural interpretation prove Infant Baptism to be 
an ordinance of God, that opposers of the ordinance 
have felt that there is no relief but to set aside the 
interpretation. I have read many subtle and earnest 
comments and essays, written with much talent and 



INFANT BAPTISM. 183 

pains, to set aside this interpretation ; but I have 
not yet found one which attempts to reconcile it witli 
a denial of the ordinance. 

The many ingenious, jarring and mutually destruc- 
tive glosses, which have been put upon this passage 
to avoid the dreaded conclusion, show how sensibly 
they feel the difficulty ; and how hard they find it to 
hit upon one which shall seem tenable or plausible 
to all even among themselves. The one most com- 
monly received and relied on is that of the famous 
Dr. Gill ; which supposes the Apostle to mean, 
^^ Else were your children illegitimate j but now are 
they legitimate.^'' The absurdities of this gloss are 
manifold and palpable. It is sufficient to mention 
one or two. 1. The terms which he renders '^ le- 
gitimate'' and "• illegitimate" have no such meaning 
anywhere else in any author, sacred or profane ; of 
course the rendering is a sheer invention — the effort 
of a subtle wit to extricate itself from an unpleasant 
difficulty. It is impossible that those to whom the 
Apostle wrote should understand him to mean so. 
It would be just as much to the point, and no grosser 
license, to render the word, ''Else were your chil- 
dren cripples, but now are they soumV^ 2. The 
gloss proceeds upon the ineffable absurdity of prov- 
ing the lawfulness of the marriage by the legitimacy 
of the children. A conclusion, to avoid which such 
absurdities must be encountered, is surely irresist- 
ible. 

While the substance of this gloss is retained in 



184 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

the text of the " Scripture Guide to Baptism,''^ pub- 
lished by the *' Baptist General Tract Society/^ ano- 
ther gloss is introduced in a note (in some editions, 
in the Appendix) by the authority of the " Direc- 
tors" of the Society. Both glosses cannot, of course, 
be true. By which they intend to abide, I know 
not — whether by the text or note ; or which they 
wish us to receive and hold as the truth ; or whether 
to plant a foot on each, as doubting whether either 
is sound : or whether to retain both, that one may 
meet some minds that are not met by the other. The 
note proposes to consider the passage not as referring 
to the lawfulness of the marriage or to the legitimacy 
or the illegitimacy of the children, but to consider it 
as though the argument were. If a believer jDut away 
a wife or a husband as an unbeliever, he must put 
aivay his children also. But this is not the argu- 
ment. The argument of the Apostle is the reverse 
of this. He assumes that the children are holy or 
clean ; and from this fact assumed as admitted and 
well known, he convinces the Corinthians that the 
believing husband need not put away his unbelieving 
wife, since, in that case, a conseciuence would fol- 
low, which (he assumes) they know cannot fol- 
low. The argument of the ritual holiness of the 
children, is based upon the fact of such children's 
having been treated as a ''Holy seed" connected 
with the Church of God. The reference, in such 
case, can be no other than to Infant Baptism so 
notoriously practiced in the Church. 



INFANT BAPTISM. 186 

I cannot but think, had the Apostle meant to say 
what the note represents him as saying, that rather 
than leaving that meaning to be inferred by a course 
of reasoning which requires so many ages to pro- 
duce one mind even to guess it out, he would have 
said so directly, instead of using the circuitous way 
of talking about ''unclean" and ''holy;'' words 
which would naturally mislead his hearers, which 
actually misled the ancient church, as well as so 
many modern believers, and indeed the great mass 
of the whole Christian world ; for in truth there are 
as yet few even among the Baptists, that have ever 
understood the passage according to the tenor of the 
note in question. 

The common interpretation, therefore, stands : 
and I adduce this text as evidence that as the chil- 
dren of believers had been joined in covenant privi- 
leges with the Abrahamic Church, they are recog- 
nized in the New Testament as sustaining the same 
relation to the Christian Church. 

Turn now to another source of argument. But 
first let me make some preliminary remarks to show 
the value of the evidence, and to vindicate it from 
objections that have been raised against it. 

The Sabbath was instituted at the creation : and 
though weeks are mentioned in the sacred history, 
the Sabbath is not again mentioned till Moses : yet 
how important the Sabbath was considered in the 
sight of God is well known. Again, it is not men- 
tioned from the time of Joshua till the reign of Da- 



186 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

vid, and yet (as says Dr. Humphrey), ''It will be 
admitted that, beyond all doubt, the pious Judges 
of Israel remembered the Sabbath day to keep it 
holy." Moreover, the Bible says nothing of circum- 
cision from a little after Moses till the days of 
Jeremiah, a period of eight hundred years ; yet 
doubtless circumcision was practised all the while. 

In like manner, our Missionary Herald, each vol- 
ume of w^hich is twenty times as large as the book 
of Acts, is now^ in the progress of the thirty-sixth 
volume.* In the whole of these, containing the 
journals of so many Missionaries, narrating every 
important incident with so much minuteness, and 
continued for so many years, there are very few in- 
stances mentioned of Infant Baptism. I have not 
the means at hand of ascertaining how many, but 
though I have been long familiar with them, and 
have long observed the fact with some curiosity, and 
have specially examined not a little, I am not able 
to find or call to mind more than a very few in- 
stances previously to the last two years. But we 
know that the Missionaries of the American Board 
are all Pedobaptists. The paucity of these records 
of infant baptism in their letters does not prove that 
they do not baptize infants : we know they do ; and 
once in a while the fact is mentioned, but it is rare, 
though their converts amount to many thousands. 

Suppose now, that, at the present time, you find 



* A. D. 1840. 



INFANT BAPTISM. 18t 

a pamphlet of twenty or thirty pages, like a single 
monthly number of the Missionary Herald, only 
half as large — covering the ground of some fifty 
years, and giving an account of the doings of cer- 
tain Missionaries of whom you have never heard 
before. The question is asked. Are they Baptist 
Missionaries : or do they baptize the infant children 
of believing parents ? On examining the pamphlet, 
we find such records as these : at such a time '' I 
baptized — in the night — a Jailor and all his;" at 
such a time '' Lydia and her household ;'^ at such a 
time ''I baptized also the household of Stephanus.'' 
Nothing is said as to whether they were all adults, 
or whether, as is more common, there were children 
in these households. Only this is certain, that if 
there were children, they were certainly baptized. 
Suppose further, that at this crisis we discover co- 
pious letters of these Missionaries, written to their 
converts from heathenism, in which letters they use 
the term household just as we do the word family. 
Are they Baptist Missionaries ? The presumption 
is that they are not. You find a difficulty which 
must be removed before you can believe that they 
are Baptists. Moreover, you take the journals of 
the Baptist Missionaries of fifty or a hundred times 
the size of this newly discovered pamphlet, and a 
hundred times more full. You do not learn that 
they ever give an account of the baptism of a single 
household; though you can understand how desira- 
ble it would be to make such a record as frequent in 



188 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

their journals as possible : and how readily they 
would be brought forward in argument as often as 
they might occur. 

You now make another discovery, viz. : that these 
unknown Missionaries consider the Abrahamic and 
the Christian Church the same. Now let one pass- 
age be found in a single letter of theirs to one of 
their Churches gathered from heathenism, to this 
effect: ''The unbelieving wife is sanctified by the 
husband, and the unbelieving husband is sanctified 
by the wife, else were your children unclean, but 
now are they holy;'''' let it be proved that they 
familiarly use these terms in the Jewish sense ; let 
but one such passage as this he found, and the ques- 
tion is settled — THEY BAPTIZE CHILDREN. 

Who could ask for more convincing proof, unless 
he is determined that nothing shall prove it, save an 
express declaration in so many words, or a miracle ? 
I might appeal to any man accustomed to sifting and 
weighing evidence in our courts of justice, is not 
this valid proof of the fact ? Were it a question of 
fact to be decided by mere impartial jurors in our 
courts of law, whether these Missionaries practised 
Infant Baptism, could there be a doubt how, on this 
evidence, the question would be decided? Could 
there be a doubt that the verdict would be, These 
men believe in Infant Baptism and practise it ? 

Make it known now that these men are the Apos- 
tles of our Lord, acting under the guidance of the 



INFANT BAPTISM. 189 

Holy Spirit ; and the interpretation of the law of 
baptism, which extends baptism to the infants of 
believing parents, has a divine warrant ; and Infant 
Baptism is an ordinance of God. 

Strong as this evidence is, it is further corroborated 
in the fact, 

TV. That the lohole Church received infant bap- 
tism — as several of the early fathers declare, and as 
the Church at large believed — from the Apostles ; 
and that the whole Church, together with all sects of 
heretics, practised it, with not a man to raise his 
voice against its divine warrant for more than thirty 
generations after Christ. 

Some of the Apostles and evangelists were spared 
to the Church a long time, and the interval between 
the last of them and the earliest of the Christian 
fathers is very brief. Thus, Peter and Paul lived 
till about A. D. 68 ; Jude, Thomas, and Luke till 
about A. D. 14 ; and John lived till about A. d. 100. 

Before this last date Justin Martyr was born, in 
the midst of Christians, at Neapolis, in Samaria. 
About forty years after the death of John, he pub- 
lished his first Apology for the Christians, addressed 
to Antoninus Pius. In that Apology he says, " Many 
persons of both sexes, some sixty, some seventy 
3^ears old, were made disciples to Christ from child- 
hood '' (sx TiatStov'). On this passage President Dwight 
justly remarks that ''there never was any other 
mode of making disciples from infancy except by 



190 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

baptism.^' Dr. Pond also says, "they were doubt- 
less made such (disciples) by baptism :" for the 
same word, ^' made disciples '' (^£.ua9£t£veyi6avj, is used 
by Christ in the commission, " Go and disciple all 
nations, baptizing them." 

Irenaeus was born about the time of Justin. He 
was a pupil of Poly carp of Smyrna, who had been 
a pupil of the Apostle John. Irenseus says, '' I can 
describe the spot on which Polycarp sat and ex- 
pounded ; his going in and coming out ; the manner 
of his life ; the figure of his body ; the sermons he 
preached to the multitudes ; how he related to us 
his converse with John, and the rest of those who 
had seen the Lord; how he mentioned their par- 
ticular expressions, and what things he had heard 
from them of the Lord ; of his miracles and of his 
doctrines.'' Irenseus says, " Christ came to save all 
persons by himself; all I say, w^ho by him are re- 
generated unto God; infants, and little ones, and 
youths, and elder persons.'' He constantly employs 
the term regenerated for baptized, and so means 
here : thus, when speaking of our Lord's authorizing 
his Apostles to baptize, he says,* '' When he gave 
his disciples the power of regenerating unto God, he 
said unto them. Go teach all nations, baptizing them." 
Justin uses the term in the same sense ; speaking of 
the baptism of the Christian converts, he says, " They 
are conducted by us to a place where there is water, 

* Gray, p. 58. 



INFANT BAPTISM. 191 

and are regenerated in the same manner in which 
we were regenerated ; for they are then washed in 
the name of God the Father and Lord of the uni- 
verse, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the 
Holy Spirit.'' 

Whether these fathers meant by ''regenerated,'' 
what some later ones did mean, that baptism confers 
an inward regeneration, so that those who are bap- 
tized are simultaneously and inwardly regenerated 
by the Holy Ghost, it is foreign to my purpose now 
to inquire. Whatever were their views of doctrine, 
they are certainly good witnesses with regard to a 
matter of fact, viz., whether infants were in their 
day baptized ; and such is the clear import of their 
testimony. 

Tertullian was born a little later than Irenseus, 
about A. D. 145. He ran into all manner of vagaries 
of doctrine ; but this invalidates not his testimony 
with regard to a matter of fact, whether the Church 
in his day baptized infants. He advises the delay 
of baptism not only in the case of children, but of 
youths and unmarried people. In the case of little 
children he says, '' For what need, except in case of 
necessity, that their godfathers should be in danger?" 
Because they may '' either fail of their promises by 
death, or they may be deceived by a child's proving 
of a wicked disposition." He supposed that the act 
of baptism washed away sins ; and therefore would 
have not only infants, but youth and unmarried per- 
sons delay, till they should be less exposed to temptar 



192 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

tions, that they might have the greater benefit of 
the baptism, and have a smaller score of sins to 
answer for afterwards. He says of infants: ''What 
need their innocent age make such haste to the for- 
giveness of sins " (viz., by baptism). He thus fully 
recognizes the practice of Infant Baptism as in com- 
mon use. ''And speaks against it,^^ say our Baptist 
brethren. True, he does ; but he speaks against it 
as against a thing in common use. The question is 
not whether Tertulli an is against it or for it; but 
whether it was in use in his day. He does not pre- 
tend that baptism is an innovation, or unlawful, or 
that it had not been in use from the days of the 
Apostles. He pleads for delay, on the ground of 
advantage, and on the same ground pleads that 
youths and unmarried persons would be gainers by 
delay. He places the reason for delay, in both in- 
stances, on the same ground. But surely our Baptist 
brethren will not receive his reasons for delay in 
either case. His testimony to the fact remains ; the 
more unquestionable for its being incidental, and for 
his whimsical bias against it. 

Origen was born 185 years after Christ. In his 
homily on Luke xiv. he says, ^^ Infants are baptized 
for the forgiveness of sins." Again, in his homily 
on Levit. viii., he says, ''What is the reason why 
the baptism of the Church, which is given for the 
remission for sins, is by the usage of the Church 
given to infants also V^ He is endeavoring to esta- 
blish the doctrine of original sin, and adduces the 



INFANT BAPTISM. 193 

practice of Infant Baptism as a proof of it. Again, 
in his comment on Komans : '' For this also it was, 
that the Church had from the Apostles a tradition 
to give baptism to infants." 

Ambrose, Chrysostom, Cyprian, and Gregory I^a- 
zianzen speak expressly of the practice of Infant 
Baptism. 

Augustine, in reference to the Pelagians, says^ 
*' Since they grant that infants must be baptized, as 
not being able to resist the authority of the Church 
which was doubtless delivered by our Lord and his 
Apostles, they must consequently grant that they 
stand in need of the benefit of the mediator." 

Again, Augustine against the Donatists, speaking 
of the baptism of infants, says, '^ Which the whole 
body of the Church holds, as delivered to them, in 
the case of little infants baptized ; and yet no Chris- 
tian man will say they are baptized to no purpose."* 

Augustine again : '* The custom of our mother 
Church in baptizing infants must not be disregarded 
nor accounted needless, nor believed to be anything 
else than an ordinance delivered to us from the 
Apostles.''^ '\- 

Again, he declares that he " never met with any 
Christian, either of the general Church or of any of 
the sects, nor with any writer who owned the 
authority of the Scriptures, who taught any other 
doctrine than that infants are to be baptized for the 



* Miller on Baptism, p. 37. f ^^- Miller, pp. 36, 37. 

17 



194 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

remission of sin." He declares that it was not in- 
stituted by councils, but was always in use.* 

Now, in opposition to the testimony of these wit- 
nesses, we have the tract: '^The Scripture Guide 
TO Baptism," published by ''The General Baptist 
Tract Society," and this tract says, ^^Our principles 
are as old as Christianity. Persons holding our dis- 
tinctive principles, i. e. the baptism of believers only, 
have appeared in all ages of the Christian era. From 
Christ to nearly the end of the second century, there 
were no others" (the word ''no others" in capi- 
tals) ; " at least, if there were any, their history is 
a blank. After Infant Baptism was introduced, many 
opposed it." So says this tract by Pengilly. 

Round assertion! But on what proof? Not a 
scrap is offered ; and that for the best of all reasons, 
there is no such evidence in the world. It has been 
sought; most ardently has it been longed for; but 
there is none ; no — none even to hang a pretence 
upon. It is asserted that none practiced Infant Bap- 
tism till near the end of the second century ; but do 
they pretend to tell how it was introduced then, and 
that so quietly as to be everywhere received in 
Europe and Asia, and all along the coast of Africa, 
and throughout the Christian world; and nobody 
know but that they had always practiced it from the 
days of the Apostles 1 No — not one poor lisp ; not 
a syllable to show how or when it was Introduced ! 

* Dr. Miller, pp. 36, 37. 



INFANT BAPTISM. 195 

It is asserted, that '^ when it was introduced, many 
did not receive it, and many opposed it." Who did 
not receive it? The Fathers declare they never 
heard of such a man ; nor do our Baptist brethren 
attempt to say who. Who opposed it ? Echo an- 
swers, Who ? Our Baptist brethren do not attempt 
to tell. But the '' General Tract Society" of the de- 
nomination send out this Tract to assert in round 
terms that ^' to nearly the end of the second century, 
there were no others" than Baptists on the question 
of baptizing infants, and, that " after Infant Baptism 
was introduced, many opposed it !"* 

"^ Our Baptist brethren also claim that the Waldenses, 
those venerable witnesses for the truth, maintain their views 
and rejected infant baptism. If this were so, it would not 
at all affect the argument, nor refute the matter already in 
proof, viz., that for four hundred years after Christ infant 
baptism was everywhere practiced in the Christian church. 
But the Waldenses did not reject infant baptism. Their own 
confession of faith, drawn up between the twelfth century 
and the period of the Reformation, expressly declares that 
they present their children — infants — for baptism^ and they 
declare that their faith and usages had been handed down 
from father to son for several hundred years. Dr. Murdock, 
in his notes on Mosheim, vol. iii. p. 228, 229, declares that 
at the time of the rejection of infant baptism by the Men- 
nonites and the Anti-Pedobaptist sects of that age, the Wal- 
denses of France and Bohemia were '^ universally believers 
in infant baptism." When their Popish neighbors charged 
them with denying the baptism of infants, they repelled the 
charge, and said, "Yet notwithstanding, we bring our chil- 
dren to be baptized." 



196 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

But let us go on with the testimony. Pelagius 
denied the doctrine of original sin, and was pressed 
with the absurdity of Infant Baptism on his princi- 
ples. Could he have denied Infant Baptism, or 
shown it to be a corruption, it would have relieved 
him from his difficulties and given him a signal tri- 
umph. He was a man of great abilities and great 
learning, and had travelled the Christian world over. 
He and his coadjutor, Celestius, used every means 
to relieve themselves from the pressure of the ques- 
tion, '' Why are infants baptized for the remission of 
sins, if they have none ?'' With this argument, says 
Dr. Pond, " Pelagius and his abettors were much 
embarrassed, and had recourse to a variety of eva- 
sions in order to escape from if But they never 
denied infant baptism. They never pretended that 
it was a corruption or innovation. On the contrary, 
Pelagius says, '' Baptism ought to be administered 
to infants with the same sacramental words which 
are used in the case of adults.'^ '^Men slander me," 
said he, " as if I denied the sacrament of baptism to 
infants ;" and again, '^ I never heard of any, not 
even the most impious heretic^ who denied baptism 
TO infants."* 

It is easy to see, from these extracts, that the 
Christian Church early slid away from purity in doc- 
trine, and that many of the old Fathers were not 
very sound theologians. I adduce them not to prove 

* Dr. Pond on Baptism, p. 107. 



INFANT BAPTISM. 19T 

a point in theology by their opinion ; I adduce them, 
not to build Infant Baptism on their a,uthority ; I 
adduce them as witnesses to a matter of fact : — that 
from the time of the Apostles, Infant Baptism was 
everywhere practiced and understood to have been 
received from the Apostles, with no man anywhere 
to lisp a breath in favor of a contrary supposition ; 
but with the unbroken and uniform belief that its 
authority rested on a foundation none other than the 
practice of apostles who were inspired of God. 

If it had ever been a corrupt innovation, would 
there not have been somewhere some controversy 
about it? Would all, everywhere, have so unani- 
mously agreed to receive it ? Would every trace of 
such innovation or such controversy have perished 
from history ; so that men living near the Apostolic 
age, though under the strongest inducement to seek 
out such history, had it existed, could never be able 
to find the least trace or fragment of it, or even 
to suspect its existence ! Could these things be 
so? Can you believe them to be so? Can 
you stretch your credulity to that point with ever 
so great an effort? But unless what is so im- 
probable and incredible be certainly true, then In- 
fant Baptism was practiced by the Apostles, and 
rests for its authority upon the authority of God. 
Now we know how to interpret the command, " Go 
and teach (disciple) all nations, baptizing them ;" — 
it means, " Baptize believers and their infant chil- 
dren." It means, to observe the order of the ancient 



198 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

covenant: which made God the God of believers 
and of their seed after them. A flood of light is 
thrown upon the interpretation of such passages as 
represent Christ as taking little children in his arms, 
and saying, '' Of such is the kingdom of heaven." 
It corroborates our understanding of those narra- 
tives which speak of the baptism of households. It 
corroborates the natural interpretation of that pas- 
sage which says, '' The unbelieving husband is sanc- 
tified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanc- 
tified by the husband, else were your children un- 
clean, but now are they holy.'^ One by one we 
have taken up these stones fitted by the chisel. They 
match together. We build on. They grow into an 
arch, as if formed by the Great Master Builder with 
that design. Not a stone is wanting. The key- 
stone is driven. Each stone lends its aid to strength- 
en the whole. The work is complete. It stands ; 
it will stand eternally ; and round its circling brow is 
graven as in letters sunk deep in the enduring rock, 
and illumined by the rays of heaven : — " The bap- 
tism OF THE INFANT CHILDREN OF BELIEVING PA- 
RENTS, RESTS FOR ITS FOUNDATION UPON NO LESS 
A BASIS THAN THE AUTHORITY OF GOD." 



INFANT BAPTISM. 199 



V. 

INFANT BAPTISM. 

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED : ITS UTILITY VINDICATED. 



What advantage, then, hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumci- 
Bion ? Much every way : chiefly because that unto them were committed th© 
oracles of God. For what if some did not believe ? shall their unbeUef make 
the faith of God without effect ?— Romans iii. 1-3. 

The authority of Infant Baptism we have already 
considered. I shall now proceed to answer some 

OBJECTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN URGED AGAINST THE 
PRACTICE, AND TO VINDICATE ITS UTILITY. 

It is asked, " What good can it do to sprinkle an 
unconscious babe P^ 

If this be asked with regard to the effect of the 
bare act of sprinkling, I answer, no good. Nor does 
the bare act of baptizing an adult do any good, 
through any virtue in the act, sprinkle — ^pour — 
plunge — wash — scour — do v/hat you will. The bare 
act has no virtue in it ; and the bare water does no 
good, whatever be the mode of applying it ; and no 
matter whether the subject of it be conscious or un- 
conscious. 



200 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

But if God has commanded it, as a token — as a 
seal of his covenant — as a means of keeping parents 
and children and the world in mind of the great 
truth that the sins need to be washed away by '' the 
sprinkling of the blood of Christ ;" and that the pol- 
luted soul, even of the infant, needs the '' washing of 
regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost;" 
if God sees fit to appoint it as a sign of his cove- 
nant, as he appointed the bow in the cloud for the 
encouragement of men in another respect ; if he sees 
fit to appoint it for its salutary influence upon the 
parent's heart, to encourage his prayers and his ef- 
forts for the spiritual good of his child ; or if he sees 
fit to appoint it as an encouragement to piety by put- 
ting honor upon the piety of parents ; or if to make 
his claim to the soul of that child, and, by affixing 
his seal, to challenge of him who has received it, 
love and duty through all the remainder of his life ; 
or for whatever unknown and secret reason other 
than these, God has seen fit to appoint the sign : — 
then it does good to obey God, even if there is no 
good done by the bare act of baptizing an uncon- 
scious babe. Doubtless there are wise and impor- 
tant reasons. Some important uses we can see and 
feel ; and though the baptism be not on the infant's 
faith, yet how often did the Saviour grant healing to 
diseased children, on account of the faith and impor- 
tunity of the parents ; as in the case of the Syro- 
phenician woman, and of the Centurion, whose faith 
brought healing even to his afifiicted servant ? 



INFANT BAPTISM. 201 

The inquiry then, *' What good can it do to the 
unconscious babe," in the first place, proceeds upon 
a ground which none of us, not even the objector, 
holds otherwise than as idle and false ; viz., that the 
bare act of baptizing, of itself, does good to anybody. 
In the second place, it is an appeal not to piety, but 
to infidelity. In the third place, it proposes to men 
to inquire concerning what they hold as an ordinance 
of Jehovah, ''What good can it do?" And if the 
question could carry its aim, and establish its prin- 
ciple, it would lead men to reject any command 
of God, the reasons of which are not plain to 
their understanding. On this ground Abraham 
would never have left his father's house ; he would 
never have proceeded to offer up his son for a burnt 
offering. 

Surely we shall not be driven from faith and duty 
by this illogical and infidel objection, how often so- 
ever our brethren may see fit to sound it in our ears I 
Surely it is not good to disobey God under the 
notion that he has required what can do no good ! 
How easy would it have been to ask the same ques- 
tion with regard to circumcising infants! How 
easy to pour out a torrent of ribaldry upon '^ such^^ 
an ordinance as '' doing good " to an unconscious 
babe ! How many worse things might have been 
said of it than are said of the ordinance which we 
sometimes hear ridiculed under the name of ''baby 
sprinkling !" Should the Patriarchs and their pos- 
terity therefore set it aside, and suffer themselves to 



202 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

be jeered out of God's covenant promises for their 
children ? 

But again it is asked, ^^Do you believe that infants 
are lost if they die unbaptized ?" No, no, no ! We 
believe no such thing ; we fear no such thing. But 
shall we take it for granted that our infants are to 
die in infancy, and therefore disobey God, and ex- 
hibit our contempt for his covenant? If, peradven- 
ture, they should livej can we be sure that no effects 
of our disobedience and unbelief may come down 
upon them, either by the natural influence of that 
unbelief, or by the special displeasure of God upon 
those who break his covenant ? Or, if we may be 
sure of this, is it certainly best to disobey God ? 

But again it is asked, ^^Do you think baptism a 
regenerating and saving ordinance f Do you think 
it sure that the children whom you baptize will ever 
be converted and saved ; at least in consequence of 
the baptism ? And if not, to what profit is the bap- 
tism, if it neither converts nor ensures future con- 
version ; and if multitudes who are baptized are never 
converted or saved?" 

If we could not answer particularly to these in- 
quiries, it would still be enough to be able to give 
this answer: ''God has so instructed us ;^^ and it 
would be quite as good an answer as Abraham could 
have given when he was about to do a greater thing, 
and when much harder questions might have been 
asked concerning the propriety of the act; to wit, 



INFANT BAPTISM. 203 

when Abraham was about to offer up his son Isaac 
as a burnt offering. 

But Paul shall answer these inquiries in detail. 
Objectors argued of old as objectors argue now ; and 
while they meant no such thing, they have caused 
the Bible to be made all the richer ; just as all errors 
and heresies, and all the objections of infidels, sub- 
sequent to the age of revelation, have only served 
to bring out the truth more clear and glorious than 
it ever would have appeared in the eyes of the world. 
Who knows but these objections were made, and 
answered, and recorded, to meet just such emer- 
gencies as these ? Who knows but that God designs, 
through the spirited and persevering efforts by which 
our Baptist brethren shake the minds of some, and 
overthrow the faith of others, to establish his truth 
and his ordinances the more firmly, and to let his 
Church see more clearly than otherwise they ever 
would have seen the Divine warrant, and the large 
benefits of his covenant, and of the application of 
its seal to their infant children ? 

The objection is, ^' That the ordinance does neither 
convert, nor ensure conversion ; that many who re- 
ceive it are never converted in their lives ; and that 
it seems useless, if not a mockery, to apply a seal 
significant of inward cleansing, and implying a 
covenant of spiritual blessings to those who have notj 
and may never have the reality ^ 

I think I have stated the objections as fully and 
as strongly as any can desire. 



204 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

Paul shall answer it, and turn the tables upon the 
objector, by more thoroughly establishing the point 
than if it had never been questioned. 

In Rom. ii. he has been showing the Jew that 
neither the law, nor the covenant, nor its seal, nor 
its promises, can save him, without his own personal 
faith ; and by that same faith the Gentile may be 
saved as well as the Jew. Nay more, all the seals 
and privileges are null to the Jew if he be a '' breaker 
of the law ;" and if the Gentile keep the law, it shall 
be with him as though he had been circumcised. 
Thus, verses 25, 26 : '' But if thou be a breaker of 
the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision ; 
therefore, if the uncircumcision keep the righteous- 
ness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be 
counted for circumcision ;" and verses 28, 29 : '' For 
he is not a Jew (i. e. a child of God), which is one 
outwardly : neither is that circumcision which is out- 
ward in the flesh ; but he is a Jew which is one in- 
wardly ; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the 
spirit and not in the letter, whose praise is not of 
men but of God.'' 

Here the conditions are as are supposed in the 
objection against Infant Baptism. Those with the 
seal shall not be saved without their own personal 
qualifications; and those without the seal shall be 
saved with those qualifications. It is one God who 
shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the un- 
circumcision through faith. Moreover, the seal is 
applied to those who are not converted by it, and 



INFANT BAPTTSH 205 

many of them are not converted at all. Moreover, 
the seal is one significant of inward cleansing, "in 
the heart and in the spirit," and so connected with a 
covenant which has salvation for its end. 

The conditions are precisely the same as those 
supposed in the objections against Infant Baptism. 
Why apply a seal of such a signification, and of such 
a covenant, to them who are not inwardly cleansed 
by it, and who may never be converted at all ? Is 
it not mockery ? At least is it not useless ? 

Paul had either heard the objection made, or his 
natural forecast taught him it would be made; or 
rather, the Holy Ghost, to answer all such objections 
then and for ever, caused the objection to be started 
in the form of this inquiry, Rom. iii. 1-3: ^^What 
advantage then hath the Jew f Or what profit is 
there of circumcision ?" (viz. if the circumcision does 
not convert him, nor ensure that he shall be con- 
verted ; and if the circumcised person cannot be 
saved on other conditions than the uncircumcised ?) 
■'Much every way," answers the Apostle. Chiefly 
because that unto them were committed the oracles 
of God. For what if some did not believe ? (It was 
with the circumcised as with the baptized, some 
did not believe; and the unbelievers were lost as. 
much as though they had been uncircumcised ; just 
as unbelievers will be lost, though they may have 
been baptized.) '•' For what if some did not believe? 
shall their unbelief make the faith of God of none 
18 



206 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

effect? Goci forbid; yea, let Grod be true, but every 
man a liar." 

The unbelief of some then is no objection against 
the covenant of God, or against his faithfulness to 
that covenant, and notwithstanding the objection, 
there is every way much profit of circumcision. It 
was still the seal of God's covenant. A score of 
centuries after Jehovah's promise to be the God of 
Abraham and his seed, the seed of Abraham, '' as 
touching the election,'' were '' beloved for the fathers' 
sake." ''And because he loved thy fathers, he chose 
their seed after them;" and (Deut. vii.) ''Know, 
therefore, that the Lord thy God he is God, the faith- 
ful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with 
them that love him and keep his commandments, to 
a thousand generations." 

The blessings of this covenant, it was foretold, 
should come upon the Gentiles. Abraham was to 
be the "father of 77ia7iy nations^ The promise was 
to be "sure to all the seed, not only to that which is 
of the law, but to that which is of faith." jS'ay, the 
prophets who foretold the glory of Christ's kingdom, 
when they spake in the most glowing strains, made 
mention of this same arrangement under the dis- 
pensation of Christ. Thus, Isa. Ixv. IT, and onward : 
" For behold I create new heavens and a new earth : 
and the former shall not be remembered, nor come 
into mind. But be ye glad, and rejoice for ever in 
that which I create : for behold I create Jerusalem 
a rejoicing and her people a joy." " They shall not 



INFANT BAPTISM. 207 

labor in vain, nor bring forth for trouble, for they are 
the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their off- 
spring WITH THEM.'^ 

Well might the Apostle Peter cry out, '' For the 
promise is to you, and to your children, and to all 
that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God 
shall call.'' Well might Paul declare, ^'And if ye 
are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs 
according to the promise." 

God appears to have designed to make a large use 
of the family influence in establishing and perpetu- 
ating the Gospel of salvation ; in keeping alive on 
the earth Gospel truth and Gospel ordinances. For 
this reason he ordained that the marriage relation 
should be limited to one husband and one wife. Thus, 
Mai. ii. 14, 15, ^' Yet is she thy companion and the 
wife of thy covenant. And did He not make one ? 
Yet had He the residue of the Spirit. And where- 
fore one f That he might seek a godly seed." 

For the same end he established his covenant in 
the household of Abraham. ^' For I know him," 
said the Lord, '^ that he will command his children 
and his household after him; and they shall keep 
the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment, 
that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which 
he hath spoken of him." 

On the same principle it is said, Ps. Ixxviii. 5-7, 
'^ For He established a testimony in Jacob, and 
appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our 
fathers that they should make them known to their 



208 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

children ; that the generation to come might know 
them, even the children which should be born, who 
should arise and teach them to their children ; that 
they might set their hope in God, and not forget the 
works of God, but keep his commandments." 

God was pleased to ordain that his blessing and 
the fruits of pious labor and of prayer should go to- 
gether ; and he graciously established and sealed this 
ordinance by covenant. The reason for the cove- 
nant and the seal remaining, they remain. They re- 
main enlarged and ratified in Christ to the end of 
time. Shall we be told that it does no good to re- 
member this covenant ? no good, as we look on the 
seal, to let the promise of the covenant encourage 
our hearts, and quicken our prayers ? Has the 
Lord mistaken his appointment, and given an un- 
necessary covenant and a useless seal ? Shall we 
conclude so ? Shall we so requite the Lord ? 

We cannot: for when we look we find that in the 
line of the seed of the promise (that of the Gentile 
belie v^ers as well as that of the law), — in this line 
of the promised seed, have been found from age to 
age the mass of those who have been saved. God 
bestows his grace where he has given his cove- 
nant; where he has deposited his word; where 
his ordinances are observed ; and where the voice 
of prayer and of faith ascends. Pagan lands 
bear not the fruits of Christendom. Those places 
in Christendom, where the oracles of God, the 
preaching of the word, and the ordinances are not, 



INFANT BAPTISM. 209 

are not visited with showers of grace and blessed 
with a godly seed, like those places where the ordi- 
nances and the word are enjoyed. The fathers of 
an ungodly community hand down ungodliness and 
perdition to their children; and often upon their 
children's children to the fourth generation are the 
iniquities of the fathers visited ; no less by the laws 
of nature, than by the providence, and according to 
the word of God. The true worshippers of God be- 
queath their sanctuaries, their Sabbaths, and their 
divine ordinances, to their posterity ; who have been 
imbued with the principles of Divine truth, and 
trained up in the nurture and admonition of the 
Lord. There the grace of God showers down the 
influence of the Holy Spirit. From these are taken 
those who are to be the sons and daughters of the 
Lord Almighty. 

Shall we be told that all this is natural, and per- 
tains not to the provision of the covenant ? Who 
MADE IT NATURAL ? Do not the arrangements which 
God has made in the natural world show as well as 
any other, what is his pleasure ? And do not they 
show us here that it is his pleasure to be the God 
of believers, and of their seed after them? Shall 
it be thought wonderful that he has ratified by cove- 
nant what he has appointed in nature ? And if th^ 
covenant were to pass away, would not the great 
truth still remain true in nature, that God is pleased 
to be the God of believers, and of their seed after 
them ? 

18^ 



210 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

But, is it all natm^alf Is there NO GRACE, in 
determining who shall be the heirs of salvation ? 
Shall we be told that the covenant is nothing, be- 
cause God has arranged powerful means to secure 
the fulfilment of his promises? Surely none can 
make this objection, who do not at the same time 
forget, that the grace of God which brings renewing 
and salvation to an individual soul, is quite beyond 
the effect of the most powerful means, and depends 
upon the sovereign act of a sovereign God. In giv- 
ing his Spirit, he is sovereign ; and his sovereignty 
works in such a way as to fulfil the promise of his 
covenant. 

But when we look at this point more fully, the 
light breaks upon us in increasing splendor. An at- 
tention to facts shows that God does remember his 
covenant, and put honor upon its seal. From the 
published and official returns of the Congregational 
Churches of Connecticut to the General Association 
in 1834, it appears that two-thirds of all that w^ere 
received to these Churches on profession of faith, 
the preceding year, had been baptized in infancy. 
Struck with this fact, I was curious to add up the 
results for several years, and found them very nearly 
the same. The results of an examination of like 
reports of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and of 
the General Association of New York, were not es- 
sentially different. About two-thirds of all those 
received to our Pedobaptist Churches on confession 
of faith, are such as were baptized in their infancy. 



INFANT BAPTISM. 211 

But taking the whole field, the baptized children 
constitute, probably, not more than one-third of the 
children attached to the congregations of those 
churches, or falling properly to no other denomina- 
tion. The state of the case, then, is this : out of 
one-third of a given population, two are hopefully 
converted, and brought into the Church, where there 
is one so converted out of the remaining ^t(;o-thirds ; 
a ratio of four to one ! What will this amount to 
in the whole country ? What in the whole world ? 
What will it amount to if you trace it down to the 
end of time? To a ^'multitude which is as the sand 
by the sea-shore, innumerable P^ 

But in the Western and Southern parts of the 
country, the difference is more striking than in New 
England ; because the proportion of the members of 
the Church of Christ to the whole population is far 
less. And these results are witnessed, when so 
much confident denunciation of Infant Baptism has 
led so many members of the church to neglect it ; 
and led so many more to regard it as a mere ritual, 
rather than as the valuable seal of God^s covenant. 
Oh, what might have been done, had parents taken 
hold of that covenant Avith unwavering faith ; and, 
pleading the covenant, had taken encouragement 
from its promises, and from God's faithfulness, to be 
more earifest in the discharge of the duties which 
that covenant implies on the part of parents ! Who 
is to answer for all this loss and harm ? Who is to 



212 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

be responsible for teaching the Church of God to 
neglect and despise both the covenant and its 
seal ? 

But it is alleged that the children of Baptist fami- 
lies are blessed also. We are glad to believe it. 
We praise God for it. This proves that God is faith- 
ful to his covenant, even when his people have not 
the grace to own it, and give God thanks for it. It is 
the promise of the covenant that continues to them 
a godly seed. Is it not strange, while the fruit re- 
mains, that the tree should be accounted dead ? But 
are they sure that the blessing follows in an equal 
degree that it would, did they acknowledge and 
plead the covenant? Are all these rich promises, 
these numerous and ample declarations, by which 
God engages to be the God of his people, and of 
their seed after them, so poor as to be thrown lightly 
away ; and that for the strange reason that God has 
arranged the means of fulfilling them, and does ac- 
tually fulfil them ? 

If our brethren choose to reject the covenant and 
its seal, will they not at least allow us and our chil- 
dren to enjoy it in peace ? We have studied the 
matter as well as they. We have a conscience to 
answer as well as they. We have the Bible in our 
hands, and we know fully all the objections of our 
brethren. May we never enjoy in peace the ordi- 
nances which we truly hold dear, as granted us and 
enjoined upon us by the oracles of God ? Are we 



INFANT BAPTISM. 213 

never to have done hearing it ridiculed as '^ Popery," 
*' superstition," and '' mockery ?" Is no respect due 
to our understanding? — none to our regard for the 
truth ? — none to our religious integrity, and to our 
fear of God ? And yet, what we are often compelled 
to hear, and what is often and diligently thrown 
upon the members of our churches, to deter them 
from this holy ordinance, take the following from a 
Baptist periodical as a specimen. 

^' If a parent is tempted to sprinkle his babe, he 
should remember, 1st. That he has no right to take 
advantage of the helpless state of his babe, and en- 
slave it to usurpers ; 2d. He has no right to counte- 
nance a mockery of Christ's ordinances ; 3d. He 
has no right to dedicate his child in connection with 
a delusion ; it will make him feel as if the matter 
were done up for life ; 4th. He has no right to coun- 
tenance a deluded and crazed minister solemnlv tell- 
ing a falsehood, however honest he may be in it, by 
saying, 'I baptize thee,' when he does no such 
thing ; and by saying he does it in the name of the 
Trinity, when it is not so ; 5th. There are so many 
false principles in the transaction, he should stop and 
consider well ; he that doubteth is condemned if he 
do it. There is every reason to believe it to be a 
deception." 

Fathers and mothers in the Church of God ; have 
you ever felt, when you have claimed the privileges 
of the covenant for your children, that the mere ap- 



214 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

plication of the seal changed the hearts of these 
children or ensured that it would ever be done ? 
Have you ever felt that, having done this, the mat- 
ter was ^' done up for life V^ Were you so instructed 
in your childhood ? Did you ever feel so ? Fathers 
and mothers in this Church of God:'*' ye whose 
memories embrace the days of Benedict, Eaton, 
Swan and Burnet : have you ever heard such a doc- 
trine taught from this pulpit ? Has anything that 
could countenance such a notion ever fallen upon 
your ears in this house of God ? I look around and 
see many youths from whom it is not many months 
since I heard the inquiry, What shall we do to be 
saved ? Dear youths, did it ever enter into your 
minds, that because you had been baptized, the busi- 
ness was done up for life ; or that you were relieved 
at all from the necessity of being born of the spirit ; 
of repenting and turning to God, if you would be 
saved ? 

I, too, am a parent. I know the hallowed and 
deep impressions of a parent in presenting his child 
to receive the seal of God's covenant ; I know how 
strong is the impression made upon a parent's soul, 
that his offspring are the degenerate plants of a 
strange vine ; fallen, depraved beings, who must re- 
ceive the inward washing of regeneration, of which 
the outward baptism is but the sign, or be lost. I 
know it comforts a parent's heart, as he looks for- 

* The First Churcli in Norwalk, Conn. 



INFANT BAPTISM. 215 

ward to the future life of that child, and forward to 
the eternal world ; to be able to claim that blessed 
promise, '* I will be thy God, and the God of thy 
seed after thee." I know how solemn is the impres- 
sion made upon the parent's heart, of the covenant, 
which, in this transaction, he takes upon his soul, to 
train up his child in the nurture and admonition of 
the Lord. 

It is vain for the world to inquire of the Chris- 
tian, ^' What is the use of taking a morsel of bread 
and a little wine at the communion ? Is there any 
benefit in a mere ceremony?'' When the Christian 
has felt the presence of the Saviour at his table ; 
when his soul has been kindled into a near com- 
munion with Christ, as the simple emblems of his 
Saviour's body and blood have set forth that Saviour's 
love, and sufferings, and faithfulness in connection 
with the tenderness of that dying charge — '' This do 
in remembrance of me." Oh, it is vain then for the 
world to ask him, What profit is there in a mere 
ceremony ? So with the parent who has felt the 
influence of that solemn act — the baptism of his 
child — upon his own heart : and when, in after days, 
he feels how it encourages his faith, and deepens 
his sense of responsibility. Yain is all the language 
of reproach and ridicule then. Men may deride this 
faith, as well as reason against it. What then ? Is 
there an article of his faith which has not been 
impugned and derided ; and that too by men bearing 
the Christian name ? The divinity of his Saviour is 



216 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

denied ; the atonement is denied ; the renewing of 
the Holy Ghost, and even his personal existence is 
denied. The inspiration of the Bible is denied ; and 
now even the personal existence of the Godhead is 
denied ; and all these things by men who call them- 
selves by the name of Christ ! If he is to yield 
every truth which is assailed, and abandon every 
point that is vehemently impugned and ridiculed, 
what has he left ? His faith, his hojDe, his consola- 
tion, his Redeemer, his Sanctifier, his God, are gone. 

^^ Prove all things : hold fast that which is good." 
This ground we have proved. We have listened to 
objections, we have weighed arguments. These 
have not moved us ; how much less shall railing and 
reproaches move us from that which we have re- 
ceived to hold, as nothing less than an ordinance of 
the Most High God ? 

Let us believe. Let us obey. Let us not only 
be scrupulous to give our children the seal ; but to 
teach them afterwards its import ; to warn them how 
they slight its obligation, or undervalue its privi- 
leges. Let us make it the basis of our plea with 
our children, that they will not forsake the God of 
their fathers. Let us make it the ground of our 
plea with God, that he will give to our children the 
blessings of the covenant which are implied in the 
seal. Let us ask these things of our covenant keep- 
ing and faithful God. Let our souls never cease 
from the throes of earnest desire, till Christ be formed 
m our children, the hope of glory. Then, when 



INFANT BAPTISM. Sit 

households meet around the throne of God, may the 
parents and the children rejoice together with exceed- 
ing joy ; and to the covenant mercy of God shall 
redound eternal praise. 

Are there believing parents who have been misled 
concerning the truth ; or who, through the want of 
a proper understanding of the ordinance ; or through 
unbelief concerning its utility, have neglected to 
claim its blessings, and to affix the seal of the cove- 
nant upon their children? Have they now seen and 
understood the truth ? Then seize the privileges of 
the covenant, and claim the seal for your children, 
if it yet remains within your power, and pray God 
not to visit your past unbelief or negligence upon 
you or upon your offspring. Cast not away the 
privileges of that gracious covenant, Avhich the 
Lord has deemed worthy of HIM to offer to his 
children as a precious boon from their Father and 
their God. 

Let those who are parents, and not yet savingly 
interested in the covenant of grace, feel for their 
children as well as for themselves. Perhaps, the 
seal of the covenant was given to you. '' Perhaps, 
to you it descended from generation to generation, 
through an unbroken line of pious ancestry.'^ It 
was a token that God, the God of your fathers, was 
ready to be your God and the God of your children, 
if you would not, by your own unbelief and guilt, 
cast away the blessings of the covenant. Shall the 
line be broken in you ? Think how many genera- 
19 



218 LAW OF BAPTISM. 

tions of the descendants of them who disowned the 
Messiah, and were broken off and rejected from 
being the people of God, have wandered away, and 
stumbled and perished on the dark mountains. Shall 
your children, and perhaps your children's children, 
be thrown aside among the branches that are broken 
off? 

It is true, that no one of them will perish, but for 
his own sin. But how many a child, and how many 
children's children do perish through the occasion 
and influence of an unbelieving and wicked father ? 
I need only refer you to the influence of a Sabbath- 
breaker, an infidel, a scoffer, a profane, or lewd, or 
unprincipled man, upon the destinies of his children 
and more remote descendants. Can we be sure that 
there may be nothing like this in the influence of 
him who is the occasion of breaking away from the 
covenant and its seal, and of cutting his posterity 
off from privileges and means of grace which the 
piety of his ancestors, from generation to generation, 
handed down to him ? Is there no such natural 
tendency or influence in the example of his unbe- 
lief? — none in his neglect of household prayer ? — 
none in the separation of him and all his, from the 
sacraments of the Church of God? Remember and 
fear that solemn admonition of God to his covenant 
people of old — ^'Because thou hast rejected know- 
ledge, I will also reject thee — seeing thou hast for- 
gotten the law of thy God, I ivill also forget thy 
children.^^ 



INFANT BAPTISM. 219 

The branch may be broken off, but it is not for 
man to tell when it may, if ever, please God to graft it 
in again. Oh! son — daughter — of the covenant! 
what consequences — aside from the condemnation 
and ruin of your own soul — may arise from your 
unbelief, and descend in fruits of woe to generations 
that are yet unborn ! Let the seal of the covenant, 
which was impressed upon you with the tender 
yearnings of parental faith, remind you of the bless- 
ings that you cast away in remaining alienated from 
God. Call not down upon your own head this 
double ruin. Break not away from the cords with 
which God himself would draw you to salvation. 
Defeat not the prayers of a father's faith and of a 
mother's love. Compel not the mercy, that waits 
to save you, to depart, and to give you up to the 
hand of justice, as one who, from the gates of 
heaven, would thrust himself down to the despair 
of hell 

CHILDREN of the COVENANT! ye who were 
in your infancy dedicated to God ! Your parents by 
their acts bind you in secular matters. God and the 
laws of society have given them this prerogative, 
not for their advantage, but for yours. It is then 
no unprecedented thing, when you are by your 
parents given up to God and sealed with his seal. 
He claims this right in you; the neglect of your 
parents would not have altered his claim. But would 
you — if you could — that when God had graciously 
given his covenant for their advantage and for yours, 



220 LAV>^ OF BAPTISM. 

that they had thrown away the covenant and denied 
you the seal? Choose you, then, to throw away 
proffered blessings, and having thrown them away, 
to take your lot with the Avorld, with no portion but 
in the uncovenanted mercies of God? 

Had a rich friend, in your infancy, offered to leave 
you an estate, if 3^our parent v/ould in your behalf 
undertake the trust and execute the forms, would 
you that your parent had refused the gift; and 
especially if the condition of the gift had obliged 
him carefully to train you up in the nurture and 
admonition of the Lord ? Surely you would not be 
so unwise. Is the case altered when God himself 
is the giver, and proffers a richer portion than all the 
kingdoms of this world ? Is God a foe to offer this 
covenant ? Is your parent a foe to take and seal it ? 
That seal is to you a token no less of privilege than 
of obligation. Will you throw these promises of 
God away ? Will you determine to renounce your 
baptism, and render it null? You may, but not with 
ordinary guilt ; especially if from infancy you have 
been the child of prayers and tears to God for your 
salvation. Oh ! how rich this boon of the covenant 
and its seal, which thus pleads with you, our chil- 
dren, to be the children of your father's God ! Will 
you disavow the covenant and the seal ? Will you 
disown the obligation which they impose on you to 
love and serve Jehovah, your father's covenant 
God ? You may be so infatuated, but God will not 
for this release you from the obligation. You may 



INFANT BAPTISM. 221 

sell your birthright like Esau, but, like Esau, you 
may find no place for repentance, though you seek 
it carefully with tears. 

0, God of our fathers ! our covenant God ! Save 
our children from such a doom as this ! Seal them 
thine own, by working in their souls the reality of 
that which is signified by the outward sign. Make 
them thine own by the washing of regeneration and 
the renewing of the Holy Ghost, and thy name shall 
have all the praise, for ever. Amen. 



THE END 



]9^ 




\ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 665 099 5 






s>e 



